Things are truly upside-down. Christians, who have been scorned forever as weak and milk-toast, are suddenly public enemy number one. And while Christianity has been the source of thousands of American charities and the inspiration for hospitals, medical care, and education worldwide, it is now labeled by the Left as hateful and bigoted. Then we see destructive anarchist groups like Antifa and BLM glorified in the Media and academia as forces for good! How could this be?

The Left has had an advantage over conservatives in shaping the public’s perception of things for many years because they have controlled the narrative. They have presented themselves as caring and compassionate, sympathetic to the poor and the disadvantaged. And, because of the Christian ideal of giving people the benefit of the doubt, we have accepted that maybe they were truly concerned for those who are less advantaged.

However, because Leftists now have so much power, they no longer feel the need to hide their true objective. They seek political dominance and the elimination of Christianity in all public forums and will do whatever is necessary to accomplish those goals. They have portrayed themselves as selfless champions of the downtrodden, and conservatives as greedy. However, we must no longer tolerate that narrative. It is a lie, and their duplicity is clear to all whose eyes are open.

Leftists have done well at creating the perception that they are not in politics for money, thus masking their greed. But make no mistake! They are as greedy as one can be. However, if you have enough power, you do not need personal wealth because you control other peoples’ money.

With the power to tax, politicians can live as if they are wealthy by legally confiscating and spending other people’s money. Creating wealth is difficult and requires certain skills and discipline. But if you are not talented in this area and are lazy and unethical, politics provides you with a vehicle to achieve your dreams without the hard work and risk that capital creation requires.

What we have seen over the last 60 years is the Left demonizing those who create wealth in order to justify confiscating it.

At the same time, the leftists, who disdain wealth creators, have convinced the public that they (the Leftists) are better and more selfless stewards of that wealth. Thus, we have people who are incapable of creating wealth, taking it from those who do and spending it according to their own desires and accruing to themselves more power in the process. It is interesting how many politicians have become multimillionaires even as they denounce those who created the wealth in the first place.

We are now governed by people who have no idea how to create or wisely manage wealth, and whose real motivation is that of controlling the rest of us. They are the embodiment of greed. They are concerned primarily for themselves and serve others only as a means of accruing power and wealth to themselves.

While one would expect that they would alienate most everyone because of their greed, they have managed to gain a substantial following among three groups who sustain them in power: those who are content to take a handout and produce nothing, those who are genuinely needy and have become dependent upon the politicians, and a third group who are equally cynical and see an opportunity to accrue some personal power and prestige by supporting the Leftists and their sordid process.

Sadly, the Media, whose primary responsibility is to hold public figures accountable, cover for their corruption. There is no way to describe it other than that of non-producers stealing and controlling what the producers have created. They are truly parasitic.

This brings us to the very important question: what does the Bible say about all this?  As “pilgrims” here are we to be compliant and silent? Compassion and generosity are certainly Christian values! But as an aside, let us put to rest the nostrum that Leftism is compassionate. It decidedly is not! After decades of the federal government spending literally trillions of dollars on numerous supposedly compassionate programs, the poor remain poor and the powerless remain powerless.

If these programs are as bad as they appear, we should turn our attention to their impact on society in general and on those who contribute. Is it moral to confiscate resources from those who create and earn it only to squander it on ineffective programs? I believe the evidence suggests that the exorbitant taxation upon the middle and upper classes in America over the last 50 years has been both immoral and counterproductive.

So, what does the Bible teach about such things? One need not be a Bible scholar to know that stealing is wrong. Therefore, without having good reason the government should not take from one citizen to give to another. Having the government’s imprimatur does not change the reality that transferring wealth from earners to non-earners without Constitutional authority is theft.  The right to personal property guaranteed in the Constitution is not simply to provide for an individual’s greed, but rather to protect his life.

Unprotected property rights place every citizen’s life at risk. If the government can take, at will, one’s wealth, it can starve that person to death. And the fact that even after trillions of dollars have been transferred, primarily from earners to non-earners, there are still many millions in poverty underscores the need to rethink our “compassionate” welfare system. As constructed, it is a colossal failure.

Foundational to the issue is the fact that government is incapable of ministering compassion. It must fall to other social institutions and organizations, such as churches, to resolve the poverty problem.

The Bible notes that “wisdom is justified of her children,” (Luke 7:35), meaning that the wisdom of an act is revealed by its consequences; and Jesus stated that “a tree is known by its fruit,” (Luke 6:44). Therefore, if a particular activity repeatedly produces bad results one can assume the act is foolish and ought to be discontinued. One’s intentions mean nothing in this.

While the Left burnishes their “compassion badges,” boasting of how much they care, virtually everything they have done for over fifty years has produced nothing but heartache, misery, poverty and increased public unrest. It cannot be ignored that as Christianity has been pushed to the fringes of society there have been tragic increases in crime, depression, suicide, divorce, sexual perversion, and confusion.

Setting aside for the moment those who cannot provide for themselves, the Bible is very clear that anyone who refuses to work should not eat. Witness the sorry tales of so many lottery winners to understand that we do not do well with unearned wealth! Therefore, government should do nothing to facilitate a comfortable life for those unwilling to work. Sources, secular and sacred, confirm that generally, those who are diligent, disciplined, and work hard do not go hungry.

Scriptures tell us that God gives rain to those who love Him and those who don’t. He is gracious! This does not mean that His provision will always be abundant. We should all be grateful to him for his care and provision for us whether it be modest or abundant. It may be that one of our biggest errors, culturally, is that we have raised a generation of Americans who believe they are owed a rich and comfortable existence even though they have done little or nothing productive. To give it to them would be immoral and destructive!

Colonial Jamestown, VA scholar, Martha McCartney, wrote in Encyclopedia Virginia, (Dec 7, 2020) that Captain John Smith, early President of the colony, would have nothing of slothfulness, declaring that

“the labours of thirtie or fortie honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintaine a hundred and fiftie idle loyterers.”

Whatever his motives, it is quite clear that his stubbornness preserved lives. Very few died under his leadership while a large number perished under the leadership of his successor who was not so strict. As McCartney noted,

“Regardless of whether Smith recognized this fact, he found that even small amounts of work improved both the material life and health of the colonists.”

These realities are so obvious that no politician can honestly deny them. To create a public welfare system where productivity and hard work are discouraged by the government’s confiscation of wealth from producers to distribute it to those who are unwilling to work is simply immoral and will, if not corrected, contribute to the collapse of the entire economy. It is impossible for our politicians not to understand this, therefore, we need no longer accept the notion that they are well-intentioned but misguided.

No, they are simply greedy, either for money or power, or both. They are snakes in the grass who ought to be exposed for what they are. Their programs have produced virtually nothing of value and instead an abundance of suffering.

In seeking a biblical perspective, the faithful Christian should consider two primary principles: First is his responsibility to the poor. Numerous biblical texts in both Old and New Testaments give God’s answer. On one hand, Christ Himself noted that, “the poor you have with you always.” This is merely a sad acknowledgement of reality. People are poor for a variety of reasons, many of which are intractable.

This must not be construed as cause for doing nothing. Many Christians and others have seen the impossibility of eliminating poverty as cause for discouragement and apathy.

However, Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan teaches us that while we may not be able to do much about poverty across the globe, we can do something about people in need who cross our paths regularly. Therefore, the Christian ought to be known for wise generosity: encouraging work for those able, and compassionate giving to those who cannot provide for themselves.

Which leads to the second principle: Just as it is wrong to ignore genuine need, it is wrong to indulge the indolent. The Scriptures teach that if a man refuses to work, he should not be given food. It is for his own betterment that others refuse to support him in his slothful choices. He will gain more than a meal when he learns the value of hard work.

America is at a fork in the road. Will we return to the imperfections, yet relative goodness of a society guided by the principles and truths of Christianity and the Bible, or adopt Marxism and fall back into the despotism and misery that has otherwise characterized human history from its beginnings?

The choice seems pretty clear to me!

Wise people use words carefully to ensure their real intention is understood. But these days many people throw the word “hate” around carelessly. One must wonder if they know what it means. Examine a dictionary and you will discover it associated with words like intense dislike, detest, and loath. In the Bible the word is sometimes used to refer to the results of foolish actions, such as stating that a parent who fails to discipline a child hates him, because an undisciplined child is at great risk. A spoiled child, who does not get something he wants from a parent, such as a toy, may complain that the parent “hates” him. Much like Leftists who claim that those who resist their immorality “hate” them! Like anarchists they demand the freedom to do whatever they wish.

I suppose my first encounter with an anarchist was in second or third grade. An older student would take our personalized pencils, (Christmas gifts from the teacher), cut our names off and claim them as his own. Or, if we left possessions unattended, he would break them. Needless to say, he would threaten us against reporting him. As I grew older, I witnessed the same behavior from troublemakers who harassed students who worked hard. They were of the same character as people I ran into years later who smashed mailboxes, or keyed nice cars, or became Leftist anarchists. In the “good-ole days” there were adults in the room who kept these troublemakers at bay.  Today, adults are conspicuously absent. Government, the primary purpose of which is to protect the good citizens of the state, is now siding with the anarchists against the law-abiding citizens.

As a child I could not understand these people’s delight in destroying things or callously hurting others without cause. As I studied God’s Word, however, I came to understand better the relationship between rebellion against God and anarchy. Such are the “scoffers” referred to in Proverbs 29:8:

“Scoffers set a city aflame, but wise men turn away wrath.”

It also notes that reasoning with such people is impossible as they have no interest in truth, Prov. 29:9,

“If a wise man contends with a foolish man, whether the fool rages or laughs, there is no peace.”

And I also came to see that anarchists target anyone who seeks to do right. The animosity exhibited by failing junior high students toward good students is the same as that we have seen in recent times by Leftists smashing police cars and burning down businesses. In their pride they resist all authority. They hate God who is THE Authority, and they hate those who represent Him.

“The bloodthirsty hate the blameless. . . .”  Prov. 29:10

“He who is upright in the way is an abomination to the wicked” Prov. 29:27b.

It is as Mark Twain noted, “Nothing is more irritating than a good example.” And we conservatives, especially Christians, as poorly as we represent Christ at times, are still VERY irritating to the Left.

It is important to counter the deceptive messaging of BLM, Antifa and the MSM. Yes, there are significant racial problems in America and yes there are individuals who harbor resentment against people of other races. However, Leftists use such issues cynically for their own political gain but have no desire to actually improve racial relations. Just as predators in the wild have many ways to disguise themselves, Leftists camouflage themselves as caring for the oppressed even as they plot the destruction of the country, which, by-the-way, would only exacerbate the situation of marginalized citizens. There has been nothing more detrimental to the young people of America’s inner cities than the Left’s attack on the nuclear family, the destruction of which has caused more deaths of teens and children than any other factor.  An intact family is a child’s best hope for health and success. Yet BLM publicly states its desire to eliminate the traditional family altogether! In what universe is that loving?

Two things are abundantly clear about anarchists: they hate what is morally right and those who represent it. Second, they understand that the object of their hatred is truly good and right. They are not confused about where the lines are. We are not dealing with good hearted but confused people. They understand that right is right, and wrong is wrong, and they hate what is right and love what is wrong. They demonstrate that they know the difference every time they accuse conservatives of the very things they themselves do. They declare that there is no “Truth,” and lie without any evidence of conscience, and yet cry “liar” at those who oppose them because they know that lying is wrong and that there is, in fact, Truth. Accusing someone of lying would be pointless if lying were not immoral.  In their foolishness they think the public is blind to their lying but will turn against those they accuse of lying. Their hypocrisy manifests in a host of ways.  If you examine their conduct, virtually every evil they accuse others of doing they practice themselves.

Case in point: if you disagree with them at all they immediately slur you as a hater. They know a lot about hate, for they are the worst of haters.  It characterizes everything they do, as their ideology is so destructive, but they are seldom called out for it.

One of the leaders of the group who violently took over several blocks of Seattle in 2020 published a note to followers after leaving the area calling them “comrades.”  Besides thus categorizing them as Leftists and Marxists, it notably did not refer to them as friends. Marxists and Leftists do not really have friends, for to have friends one must be willing to love and do what friends do. However, study the history of Marxism and you will find that loyalty is not a Leftist or Marxist value. Among other things, they are noted for bloody purges and those purges generally included “comrades.” So very friendly of them!  An irony discovered in the third chapter of Daniel corroborates the world’s willingness to destroy their own. King Nebuchadnezzar had three Israelite men thrown into a furnace because they refused to bow before his idol.  However, it was not the Jews who died in the fire at Nebuchadnezzar’s command, but his own soldiers. Which brings us back to God.

Marxism is atheistic. Rejection of God is foundational to the theory. But, where there is no God, there can be no love, for “God is love.” And without love there can be no true friendship. George Eliot noted that “friendship is that inexpressible comfort of feeling safe with a person having to neither weigh thoughts nor measure words.”

With a true friend you can say whatever you like without fear. In simple terms, a friend is someone who cares so much for you that it is virtually impossible to sever that relationship. He or she naturally gives you the benefit of the doubt, trusts you and lets nothing separate you. It is a founding principle of this Republic, is enshrined in our Constitution and is ultimately sourced in God and the Bible. “Innocent until proven guilty” is the legal manifestation of this principle, and it is how you naturally treat your friends. It is the heartbeat of a mother who needs overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing before admitting to one of her children’s errors. This accurate definition of true friendship exposes the vileness of the Left.  For despite their protestation of caring for others, they care for no one but themselves.

Jimmy Kimmel is merely one of many celebrities to have discovered that although he has gone out of his way for years to show he is a Leftist, supported Leftist causes, and hates all who are on the Right, it meant nothing when they discovered he had unwittingly stepped over the line a few years ago. Regardless of all he has done and his solidarity with their cause they instantly threw him under the bus for his sins. They were never his friends. They are not good people.

Karlyn Borysenko, a Democrat who attended a Trump rally and others like her, have discovered how hateful the “Loving Left” really is and how in a moment comradery turns to hate. Former Leftists have also commented on how they lived in constant fear of being “found out” for disagreeing with some point of Leftist dogma. It is clear that there is no love among Leftists, for as the Bible says, “Perfect love casts out fear.” I wonder if Jeff Bezos still drinks the Kool-Aid now that Robespierre has shown up at his door? (Go online to read about the guillotine set up at his house by Leftists!).

The “Cancel Culture” of BLM, Antifa and other Leftists is more ominous than many would have us believe. The idea that destroying those who disagree with you is acceptable is the rationale that has led to most every war in human history. Leftist tactics portend a totalitarian state under which all disagreement is squelched.  Today, a few radicals terrorize the majority into either compliance with their agenda or silence. While these Leftists, I expect, would declare that they wish no one dead, what else can one deduce from their efforts to destroy their opponents’ ability to provide for themselves by getting them fired? Such oppression is eerily reminiscent of the Anti-Christ of the Bible who will require everyone to accept his ”mark” in-order-to buy or sell. At this point Leftists’ power is focused primarily on shaming truth tellers into silence but imagine what suffering they will create if they gain the political power necessary to bring criminal penalties against their opponents!

Such is the nature of the Left.  With friends like that. . . . Well, you know the rest!

So much for the compassionate, caring Socialists. Do not be fooled. Despite their protestations, neither they nor their cause are good.

Good people, upon hearing something unsettling about a friend, before rendering a judgment will seek clarification, hoping that it was a mistake or a misunderstanding.  People with good hearts, if you have transgressed in some way against them, upon your confession and request for forgiveness will happily grant it. That is what GOOD people do. They also understand that good people can disagree about just about anything and still be good people and even be friends.

It is decidedly not the way of BLM, Antifa, or leaders of the political Left. Violate one of their norms and you are done. No investigation. No calls with regrets. No explanations. You are just unceremoniously cut off. They are finished with you forever. Whether you violated a long-held tenet of Leftism or one just discovered five minutes ago, or, they discover you participated in some conduct which was “normal” thirty years ago, but recently has been determined to be offensive to the wrong group.  Too bad. You’re evil!

This is no incidental oversight on their part. They are not merely caught in the “emotions of the moment.” It is at the core of who they are and what they seek to accomplish. Ask what their objective is, and you will not receive an explanation as to how Americans will get along better under their plan, or the process by which more Americans will be able to participate in the Nation’s opportunities. No, what you will hear is simply “Destroy it all!”  They cannot and will not tell you what they will replace “it” with because they are not builders. They are destroyers, just like the punk who slashes tires, breaks other’s toys, or smashes mailboxes.

It also goes without saying that good people do not hijack worthy causes for bad ends. Returning to an earlier point: of course, EVERY BLACK LIFE MATTERS! They especially matter to God before whom we will all give an account someday. The issue of racism and all that goes with it is worthy of serious consideration and action.

Evangelist Billy Graham noted that the racial divide was one of the most egregious problems Americans face. But BLM and Leftists care nothing about the minorities they so publicly profess to champion and are not improving racial relations. Leftists and Left leaning Democrats have run most major U.S. cities for decades yet the slaughter of young minorities in those inner cities continues unabated. Over a hundred people were shot and several children were murdered in Chicago in just one weekend last year yet not one of these Leftists said a word or lifted a finger to do anything that would bring real change.

But why would they? They truly do not care.  Their objective is power, not peace.

And so, as we consider “hate,” we see that it is the Leftists who truly practice it, either directly through physical confrontation and injury, or by limiting their opponents’ ability to make a living, yet at the same time complaining like children that those who will not give them what they want “hate them,”

If you find yourself sympathizing with those experiencing difficulty in America, especially children, understand that the most visible and vocal ones pontificating on these issues are not the ones who are actually bringing relief. Tragically, most of the faces highlighted by the MSM are divisive and self-serving. Regardless of what they say, and how the Media portray them, BLM, Antifa and the others like them are not helping and you don’t want to affiliate with them. Look rather to the multitude of good people who are daily, away from the cameras, changing lives for good.

If you want to make a difference, support them!

President Boris Badenov and his prickly assistant Vice President Natasha Fatale have devised yet another inept scheme to try to salvage their feckless administration. They decided to pretend that the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol was analogous to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the coordinated Islamist attacks on 9/11. Boris and Natasha hope Americans will be so beguiled by these analogies that they will turn their attention away from the insuperable failures of the Badenov administration.

Further, Boris and Natasha are using the unfortunate Jan. 6 riots to inflame a race conflagration their party started and fuels in order to secure the votes of persons of color, especially blacks. They’re counting on Americans of color not looking too closely at how Democrat policies have ravaged impoverished communities.

Read yesterday’s words from Kamala Harris who will live in infamy—or if she’s really lucky, maybe she’ll live just in irony:

Certain dates echo throughout history, including dates that instantly remind all who have lived through them—where they were and what they were doing when our democracy came under assault. Dates that occupy not only a place on our calendars, but a place in our collective memory. December 7th, 1941. September 11th, 2001. And January 6th, 2021.

I’m likely not alone in remembering exactly where I was when radical Islamists hijacked planes twenty years ago, killing 2,977 innocent people, including 8 children, and wounding 6,000. I have no idea where I was when the shameful U.S. Capitol riots took place one year ago, during which no rioter/trespasser killed a single person.

Flailing futilely about to make her warlike analogies plausible, Harris said,

On that day, I was not only Vice President-elect, I was also a United States Senator. And I was here at the Capitol that morning, at a classified hearing with fellow members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Hours later, the gates of the Capitol were breached.

I had left. But my thoughts immediately turned not only to my colleagues, but to my staff, who had been forced to seek refuge in our office, converting filing cabinets into barricades.

Take note, Harris wants the nation to know that she wasn’t concerned about the welfare of only her elite colleagues but also her lowly staff.

As the “gates” were “breached,” her staff sought “refuge” behind their filing cabinets. Sounds exactly as I imagine sailors doing on Dec. 7, 1941. Her staff need not have worried. Although Harris had already left, she was doing what Congressional leaders do best: She was thinking about her staff, quivering as they awaited certain death.

Harris continued her imaginative retelling:

What the extremists who roamed these halls targeted was not only the lives of elected leaders.

What they sought to degrade and destroy was not only a building, hallowed as it is. What they were assaulting were the institutions, the values, the ideals that generations of Americans have marched, picketed, and shed blood to establish and defend.

How does Natasha know the insurrectionists/terrorists/enemy combatants “targeted” the “lives of elected leaders”? Wait! Could she have been colluding with them?

What enrages many Americans is how differently hypocrites like Harris treat January 6th as compared to the months of rioting, arson, looting, and assaults on American institutions, values, ideals, and law enforcement officers committed by Antifa and BLM in 2020. Harris even urged Americans to contribute to a fund to bail out of jail those who assaulted that which “generations of Americans have marched, picketed, and shed blood to establish and defend.” Harris tweeted this in June 2020:

If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.

Harris, second-in-command of the party committed to court-packing, illegal immigration, voter fraud, and filibuster-busting, and fervent supporter of setting leftist criminals free, apparently doesn’t see the irony in this statement

On January 6th, we all saw what our nation would look like if the forces who seek to dismantle our democracy are successful. The lawlessness, the violence, the chaos.

Suddenly Harris cares deeply about the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment, and the rule of law:

What was at stake then, and now, is the right to have our future decided the way the Constitution prescribes it: by we, the people — all the people.

We cannot let our future be decided by those bent on silencing our voices, overturning our votes, and peddling lies and misinformation; by some radical faction that may be newly resurgent but whose roots run old and deep.

You see, the strength of democracy is the rule of law. The strength of democracy is the principle that everyone should be treated equally, that elections should be free and fair, that corruption should be given no quarter.

If she’s truly committed to the U.S. Constitution, maybe she should encourage her party to stop attacking the Second Amendment. If she truly opposes the silencing of voices, maybe she should encourage her fellow leftists to stop canceling speaking engagements, stop trying to get people fired for expressing their views on race and sexuality, and stop trying to force Americans to use Newspeak when referring to men and women. If she believes the “strength of democracy is the rule of law,” then as the border czar, maybe she should try to stop border lawbreaking.

Next came one of the central goals of the Badenov administration, -the only hope Dems have for winning elections in 2022 and 2024:

And the work ahead will not be easy. Here, in this very building, a decision will be made about whether we uphold the right to vote and ensure free and fair election.

Let’s be clear: We must pass the voting rights bills that are now before the Senate. …

Who knew suffrage was under assault right now in the U.S. Capitol?

Democrats, practiced at the art of deception—particularly through the redefinition of terms—have redefined efforts to ensure free and fair elections and reduce voter fraud as racist efforts to suppress the black vote. They’re doing this, not to help communities of color, but to help Democrats maintain their positions of power.

But increasing numbers of blacks and Latinos now see the Democrat charade of altruism for what it is: a selfish, grasping effort to acquire more power for an entrenched bureaucracy who have little to no regard for those who have trusted them and given them that power for decades even as their communities of color die.

Black and brown communities see that Democrats have destroyed their babies, their families, their communities, and their schools.

They see that Democrats are destroying the bodies and spirits of their children. Democrats have created a hyper-sexualized, morally untethered America that robs children of fathers and leaves mothers alone to try to piece together the broken lives of their children.

They see the decaying and dangerous communities that fatherless boys create.

They see that wealthy, powerful Democrats send their children to the most expensive private schools in the country while denying educational choice to families trapped in dangerous, poor-performing urban schools with union teachers who refuse to work.

They see wealthy powerful Democrats aiding and abetting lawless border crossing in order to import votes. And persons of color know that it will be their urban communities that will suffer most from illegal immigration, while the wealthy and powerful are inoculated from the worst of those effects.

Yes, Americans of color see that Democrats spread government money to buy votes. They see the division Democrats sow in order to grow their power and the lies they tell to maintain it.

Kamala Harris should live forever in infamy.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/The-Vice-President-Who-Will-Live-in-Infamy.mp3

Then get the right people elected to the school boards.

Written by Ben Boychuk

Suddenly, but unsurprisingly, the U.S. Justice Department is interested in parents protesting local school board meetings. Because of course it is.

In America in 2021, citizens’ loud but nonviolent demonstrations before elected officials are tantamount to domestic terrorism and “hate speech,” while the Black Lives Matter and Antifa insurrectionary violence of 2020—which resulted in at least 30 deaths, over $1 billion in property damage, and the brief rise of lawless “autonomous zones” in Seattle, Philadelphia, New York, and Richmond, Virginia—is “fiery but mostly peaceful protest.”

The danger is clear and present—it simply depends upon who is protesting. As one wag put it on Twitter, “The DOJ used to go after MS13. Now you want them to go after Moms of 13-year-olds?”

Parents don’t like what they see coming out of their local schools. But government officials would prefer to do their work unencumbered by public input. This is old news, with an arrogant new twist. Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe summed up the current conventional wisdom nicely at a debate with his Republican opponent the other week: “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

That depends on what the schools are teaching, doesn’t it?

Indoctrination Nation

Parents have two grievances, broadly speaking. First, they oppose COVID-19-related mask mandates for their children. They note that the European countries we’re so often asked to emulate do not have mask (or COVID vaccine) mandates for schools. Sweden, where school is compulsory through the age of 16, actively discourages kids from wearing masks. And yet that country’s transmission rates have gone down population-wide.

The second grievance is also COVID-related, in as much as the lockdowns compelled more parents to notice what their kids are—and are not—learning. Many parents, including many black and Latino parents, do not want their children to be taught that America is a systemically racist nation and that its institutions (capitalism often gets mentioned here) are irredeemable

Parents across the country have shown up to normally staid school board meetings to demand that critical race theory be removed from the curriculum. Defenders of the race-based curriculum like to point out that “critical race theory” is not actually being taught in schools. But that’s just a semantic sleight of hand. No, kids aren’t reading Derrick Bell. Instead, they’re getting “social studies” (since American public schools don’t really teach history anymore) heavily informed by critical race theory and Marxist-tinged critical theory.

Parents are on to the scheme and they’re unhappy about it. The National School Boards Association on September 29 asked Joe Biden to intervene, alleging “America’s public schools and its education leaders are under an immediate threat.” The group says its members have “received death threats and have been subjected to threats and harassment, both online and in person.”

Making a terrorist threat is a crime not protected by the First Amendment. But it’s unclear why such threats could not be investigated by state and local law enforcement, rather than the feds. Well, the NSBA has an answer for that, too, although the rationale is paper-thin: “NSBA believes immediate assistance is required to protect our students, school board members, and educators who are susceptible to acts of violence affecting interstate commerce because of threats to their districts, families, and personal safety.” (Emphasis added.)

Interstate commerce? The NSBA knows that the federal government can do just about anything under the auspices of “interstate commerce,” even if the commerce never crosses state lines. The NSBA’s letter mentions “interstate commerce” three times, even though it never bothers to explain how parents protesting in Loudoun County, Virginia or Coeur d’Alene, Idaho affect the free movement of goods and services among the several states.

While the NSBA notes that some of its members have received threatening letters, and several meetings have been ended early because of crowds “inciting chaos,” it strains to document any actual violence. The NSBA leans on a “fact sheet” published in July by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, which only documents an increase in demonstrations and notes the presence in some instances of “militias and other militant right-wing actors” whose mere presence is supposed to be seen as intimidating.

(It’s unclear whether any school board members have been followed into bathrooms by irate demonstrators, as Arizona’s Democratic U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema was last week. Would that make a difference? As Joe Biden said the other day, such harassment is “part of the process.”)

The Tedious Work of Politics Redux

Obviously, it’s no fun for a school board member to be shouted at by a throng of 200 angry parents. But the First Amendment for the most part protects what parents are doing. Harsh speech is still protected speech.

That doesn’t mean federal authorities can’t make our lives miserable and chill legitimate speech. During the 1990s, attorney Hans Bader reminds, civil rights lawyers with the Clinton Administration “investigated citizens for ‘harassment’ and ‘intimidation’ merely because those citizens spoke out against housing projects for recovering substance abusers or other classes of people protected by the Fair Housing Act.” Those investigations ended after a federal appeals court ruled they violated the First Amendment. But how much did those people lose in time and money battling the federal government before they won?

And just because the courts ruled one way 20 years ago, doesn’t mean a different set of judges ruling on a similar set of facts wouldn’t go the other way today. Bader notes that in 2017, a federal judge “allowed bloggers to be sued for intimidation for angry blog posts that allegedly created a ‘hostile housing environment.’”

Here, once again, the tedious work of politics becomes unavoidable.

Parents might take a leaf from the literal playbook of a Los Angeles-based group called Parent Revolution. About 10 years ago, Parent Revolution was involved heavily with organizing parents at failing public schools to use a (now largely toothless) state law called the Parent Empowerment Act, also known as the “parent trigger.”

Parent Revolution’s insight was to teach parents to use labor-union organizing tactics. They produced a hardcover book, small enough to fit into a pocket, called The Parent Power Handbook. It detailed, simply and directly, how parents could use the law to organize and transform their children’s schools.

Most importantly, anyone could follow the model Parent Revolution laid out in the handbook.

“Step 1: Build Your Base,” “Step 2: Establish Your Chapter,” “Step 3: Pick Your Focus,” “Step 4: Launch Your Campaign.”

Every step involves practical organization advice. Schedule one-on-one conversations. Host house meetings with people you already know. Ask questions like, “What would an ideal school look like?” Try to identify parents who show an extra level of interest. Form a leadership committee. Decide on a focus—in this instance, removing noxious race-based curricula from schools. And then get people excited about it.

California’s parent trigger law had some limited success. It showed that motivated parents could make substantive changes. It also showed that the education establishment would fight viciously to stop them. (Almost every parent-trigger effort ended up in court.)

But if parents cannot get a receptive audience with their elected school board officials, they may need to resort to a tried-and-true, red-white-and-blue act of civil disobedience: the boycott.

When well organized, boycotts can be a highly effective form of political action. In 1968, Chicano activists in east Los Angeles organized a mass boycott of local schools to demand bilingual education. They got it.

Twenty years later, a smaller group of Latino parents organized a boycott of their own—this time, to insist that their kids learn English. They believed, correctly, that their children were being ghettoized in Spanish-only classes and receiving a second-class education. As one mother of a seven-year-old told the Los Angeles Times, “We want our children to be taught in English . . . that’s why we came to the United States. If not, better to keep her in my country. There she can learn in Spanish.” They won. And in 1998, Californians passed Proposition 227, which eliminated bilingual education statewide.

The boycotts succeeded for at least two reasons. First, schools are funded based on the number of pupils in attendance. In other words, the schools were losing money. Second, the parents avoided running afoul of truancy laws by enrolling their kids in free alternative schools for the duration of the boycott. Eventually, the authorities had to accept the parents’ demands.

If You Can’t Beat ’Em, Unseat ’Em

Every few years or so, parents recognize that what goes on at those otherwise boring school board meetings is pretty important to their kids’ wellbeing and educations. Local school boards may not have as much power as they once did—the number of U.S. public school districts has shrunk from more than 117,000 in 1940 to around 13,000 today—but they’re still important. In states with term limits (such as California), one party recognized decades ago that those seemingly insignificant local boards are ideal proving grounds for future candidates for statewide office.

Parents’ impassioned denunciations of noxious critical race theories and their offshoots make for great viral videos and may help shape future policies. Ultimately, however, they’re little more than political theater.

Unless and until these parents are in a position to persuade board members to change their votes, the only other option is to replace the board.

To that end, it isn’t enough to show up once to lodge a complaint. Attend every board meeting, not necessarily to speak, though sometimes to speak to put certain thoughts on the record. Mainly, be there to watch and listen. Pay close attention to the structure of the meeting. Scrutinize the agenda and the minutes, which usually appear online in advance. Take note of who else addresses the board during public comment. Get ahold of the budget and break it down line by line. Study state and local education codes.

Oh, and don’t forget to read the contract with the local teachers’ union.

In the article describing “hate speech” tactics,[i] we saw how people are called haters if they oppose the homosexual or transgender agenda. The intent is to shame the opponents into silence, that the activists’ march through American culture can continue unopposed. In this article, we’ll see how the activists try to punish those who actually do stand against them. It touches on these points:

• When people are brave and unfazed by accusations, the activists turn to the personal destruction tactics of cancel culture.

• The effects of cancel culture can be expensive and physically dangerous. The idea is to eliminate the target’s opposition and discourage others.

• Even businesses and politicians are using these tactics.

• Defenses against political cancel culture involve forcing politicians to treat all of us fairly, and to honor our Constitutional rights.

• Defenses against business and social media cancelling involves diversification, greatly multiplying our communications choices.

No compromise is possible for attackers of America’s culture

America started with a strong Christian identity. But thanks, in part, to Christians saying that culture isn’t important,[ii] we no longer have a solid consensus about what our culture should be. Because “the Supreme Court follows the election returns,”[iii] we now have legalized “gay marriage,” even though our society is still fighting about it.[iv] Then there is the matter of transgender behavior, which its proponents expect all of us to unconsciously accept, not merely tolerate. We’re supposed to mindlessly support these things:

• Accept that a man or woman is whatever sex they choose to dress up as.

• Let those individuals use whatever sex-segregated public facility they choose to, just because they say so.

• Address them by whatever pronoun they’re pleased to use, whether it be “Mr,” “Miss,” “Xi,” “They,” or a great number of other odd pronouns.[v]

Or as Professor Karen Blair says, you shouldn’t care whether your potential mate is a man or woman. If you care then you’re adding to social injustice. She says:

Just as sociologists have tracked acceptance of inter-racial relationships as a metric of overall societal acceptance of racial minorities, future fluctuations in the extent to which trans and non-binary individuals are included within the intimate world of dating may help to illuminate progress (or lack thereof) with respect to fully including trans and non-binary individuals within our society. After all, it is one thing to make space for diverse gender identities within our workplaces, schools, washrooms and public spaces, but it is another to fully include and accept gender diversity within our families and romantic relationships. Ultimately, however, this research underscores the consequences of shared societal prejudices that impact our trans friends, partners, family members, and coworkers on a daily basis.[vi]

God condemns homosexual and transgender behavior. We see this both in the Old Testament (Leviticus 20:13) and New Testament (Romans 1:26-27).[vii] Christians can’t be faithful to God and also accept these behaviors in society. In turn, the promoters of homosexuality and transgenderism can’t back down without admitting that they’re living a lie. The resulting standoff is a culture war, and requires a victor. There is no long-term compromise possible. Soon enough one side gets overwhelmed. Remember when the call was to “please just tolerate gays?” The new call is for no dissent from their dogma, and full participation in their coming culture.

A decade ago, homosexualist activists were arguing that legalizing same-sex “marriage” was all about “acceptance” and “love,” and that it would have absolutely no impact on the daily life of most ordinary citizens. Opponents of same-sex “marriage” were routinely mocked with statements like: “How is it any of your business what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?”, or, “If you don’t support gay marriage, don’t get one.” In other words: why get yourself worked up about something that has nothing to do with you?

However, just as pro-family advocates warned at the time, things haven’t turned out that way.

There are just too many examples of how same-sex “marriage”, and LGBT ideology in general, have impacted the daily lives of every citizen to cite in a single column. We saw this in a dramatic way throughout June – so-called “pride month.” One could scarcely open a website, or walk down the street, without being confronted by rainbow flags or other overt celebrations of licentious sexual practices. Many schools, libraries, and city and state legislatures flew the flag and held “pride” celebrations, while any effort to question the wisdom of using public buildings in this way was immediately shouted down as “homophobia” and bigotry.

However, this total saturation of the public space with pro-LGBT propaganda is merely one of the milder ways that LGBT extremism has inserted itself into everybody’s lives. Far more troubling is the way that the LGBT movement is propagandizing and recruiting children, often right under the noses of their parents. As a result, many well-meaning parents who decided not to speak out against same-sex “marriage” out of a desire to be more tolerant, are finding that they are losing their very children to belief-systems that they do not, in fact, support.[viii]

Christianity is evangelistic by nature. Through its obedience to God, His church illuminates the world with examples of God’s righteousness and mercy.[ix] It is a faith of action, of doing (James 2:14-26). When the church has freedom of action then God uses it to change the world. The homosexual and transgender activists can’t allow this, so they try to shut us up, with accusations of hate speech.[x] If we don’t voluntarily silence ourselves, and let them win unopposed, then they apply muscle to their demands. Cancel culture is their weapon of choice.

Cancel culture is how they silence our objections

The online Cambridge Dictionary has this definition for “cancel culture:”

a way of behaving in a society or group, especially on social media, in which it is common to completely reject and stop supporting someone because they have said or done something that offends you[xi]

The definition has interesting suggestions for using it in conversations:

Cancel culture has its place – it helps to call out and remove problematic people from mainstream culture.

In a cancel culture, we appoint ourselves the arbiters of right and wrong and also the judge and jury, because thanks to social media, we get to dole out punishment.

People participating in cancel culture mean to deprive their victims of social legitimacy and the privileges of community life. If this also inflicts economic loss or physical harm, so much the better. Since they can do these attacks without personal consequence, we see activity like this:

• Ruin someone by digging up a now unfashionable comment. In 1987 the young Navy pilot Niel Golightly wrote an opinion of why women should be kept out of combat roles. In 2020 this comment was discovered and Golightly got targeted. He lost his job for once having had a now politically incorrect opinion.[xiii]

• Punish someone who criticizes your cause. The professor Harald Uhlig criticized “Black Lives Matter” for being unrealistic about police funding. The cancel culture mob searched for things to use against him. Finding some minor incidents, they claimed that these proved how Uhlig was unfit to head a national academic journal. They demanded his firing.[xiv] The intended lesson is to never criticize “Black Lives Matter”.

• Change the culture through vandalizing history. Abraham Lincoln is accused of not having believed “black lives matter.” The mob ginned up support to remove his name from buildings, and statues honoring him are being vandalized and torn down.[xv] George Orwell pointed out, in his novel 1984, that if you can control what the public thinks, or can learn, about its past, then you can steer them into a future of your choice.[xvi] The mob has learned how to cancel history.[xvii] They also found that vandalism pays.

Political activists for homosexual and transgender issues have learned how to apply cancel culture tactics against “problematic people.” A small sample:

• Church ostracized from arts community because of sermon. The Crossing Church in Columbia, MO had an arts outreach ministry, giving money to local artists. But because of a sermon on God vs. transgender behavior, the church is now persona non grata in the arts. Galleries and theaters are pressured to stay away from the church’s assistance, or they themselves will get cancelled.[xviii]

• Feminist-supporting author cancelled for defending biology against transgenderism. Robert Jensen writes books and gives lectures. But his audience dried up once he asserted that biological sex is immutable. Bookstores won’t accept his books, he’s disinvited from speaking engagements, and he’s shouted down at other events. His views are inconvenient to the transgender behavior community.[xix]

• Pizza parlor forced to close after statements about not catering to “gay weddings.” The Memories Pizza parlor was reported to be unwilling to cater to a “gay wedding.” What followed was criticism, threats of vandalism against the business, and death threats against the owners.[xx] They never were actually asked to do that catering, but a reporter decided to create a news story. Despite the First Amendment, and Indiana religious freedom laws, apparently even advertising your Christian beliefs is a capital offense deserving of summary death.

These victims of cancel culture didn’t break any laws. In fact, their views and statements are generally mainstream culture. In a real sense, cancel culture is a form of social terrorism. It is effective, too, even if the results are temporary. The actual or imagined costs of being targeted by mob action – money, injury, vandalism – works to deter others from opposition, or even from offering silent support. This definition of cancel culture rings true:

Cancel culture is a call on organizations to terminate the financial sustenance (e.g., fire employees, stop hiring entertainers for gigs) or means of communication (removing from media platforms) of individuals who have done something objectionable. The objectionable thing may be an expressed opinion, or a statement made or action performed in the past. The act may have been unintentional, the person may have been unaware that it was objectionable, or it may be something that was not widely considered objectionable at the time. Since it is a past act, clearly the intention is not to return to favor by stopping the objectionable thing, it is to permanently punish and shun the transgressor.[xxi]

Businesses get into the cancel culture action

Business managers are human, and sometimes seek to make their businesses act as extensions of their own wants and desires. That’s how you end up with snack cracker ads “encouraging people to rethink what it means to be family,”[xxii] or assertions that “years of manufacturing and selling toothpaste make Colgate uniquely qualified to address questions around gender.” [xxiii] These ads show the world their managers’ political and cultural positions.

Running ads doesn’t interfere with the rights of anyone else, but cancel culture does. On the internet, it’s when a company blocks posts, and suspends the posting rights of people, because the company managers disagree with the posts’ cultural or political content. It’s when they block your company from getting any internet hosting at all, for the same reasons. Everyone else can have their say, but not you.

With Twitter and Facebook acting this way, it has become dangerous to our culture. Consider these reasons.

• Presented as being politically and culturally neutral. Since their content is user-generated, Twitter and Facebook supposedly have a fair slice of American opinion, reasonably reflecting the strengths and diversity of our culture. We know now that they aren’t neutral, but people still think that they are.

• Monopoly position. Twitter and Facebook have each gained a monopoly share in their particular specialty. Few people even realize that there are competitors.

• The go-to place for reaching people. The masses flock to Facebook to keep up with their friends and interesting people. They go to Twitter for timely news. Politicians post there because their constituents are already there. And it’s free to use, no subscription fees. These sites have become de-facto public squares, where people congregate to hear what is going on in their communities and the world. And supposedly, if it isn’t being said there then nobody is saying it at all.

• Hard to displace. It is a truism, that if you’re not paying for the product then you are the product. Twitter and Facebook make tremendous amounts of money from our being there. They get money from companies posting ads and from those buying audience information. A potential competitor would have to suffer years of heavy economic losses in hopes of taking back even a small share of the audience.

• Invisible hand in shaping opinions. People who visit Twitter or Facebook see posts, both deep and trivial, and think that this is the entire scope of American political and cultural discourse. These firms shield their viewers from non-approved content. People are propagandized, not through salesmanship but by omission. They’re being misled and haven’t a clue about it.

Through Twitter and Facebook meddling, America gets all the disadvantages of a one-newspaper town, except that the effects are national. It’s been shown many times that Twitter [xxiv] and Facebook [xxv] block conservative posts, and block proscribed people from posting. There are way too many outrage stories to list here. The important point is that they do interfere with American culture, seeking to influence us to accept the “progressive” way by choking opposing speech.

When companies can lever the opinions of its owners and managers into American culture, we become an oligarchy.[xxvi] The masses are ruled not by representatives but by an elite few. The actions of the people running Twitter and Facebook match those you’d expect of those aspiring to the oligarchy. We used to prosecute such companies for being monopolies.

Then there is the curious case of Apple and Google, which recently blocked the Parler application from their app stores.[xxvii] They effectively prevent people from accessing Parler until that service starts censoring posts Twitter-style. Through their actions, Apple and Google claim the right to censor what people say on forums. Although people can access Parler through a laptop computer, but not having a smartphone app cuts out a huge part of Parler’s potential audience.

Apple gave Parler 24 hours to “remove all objectionable content from your app … as well as any content referring to harm to people or attacks on government facilities now or at any future date.” The company also demanded that Parler submit a written plan “to moderate and filter this content” from the app.[xxviii]

These blocking activities come from cancel culture, for they seek to shut down a nexus of conversation because the companies disagree with the content. It is also monopolistic and anti-competitive,[xxix] but the government seems quite selective about what firms it goes after.

Politicians use cancel culture against their cultural opponents

We generally elect politicians because they’re opinionated. Their beliefs and views of our possible futures are important to us. But when they act on their opinions there are at least two ways where they can go wrong and betray their offices:

• Passing unconstitutional laws. A constitution is a charter for government, stating what acts it can try and the limits of its powers. Despite this, constitutions are exceeded quite frequently. For example, the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause is leveraged by Congress to regulate most everything, even when the regulated activity doesn’t involve interstate commerce.[xxx] It is excused by all with a wink and a shrug.

Americans also have the Bill of Rights, amendments to the U.S. Constitution and, because of the Fourteenth Amendment, applying to all state governments.[xxxi]. These amendments don’t grant rights to the citizens. We don’t have religious freedom, etc., because of these amendments. Rather, these are warnings to, and restrictions on, the government. These are assertions that our rights pre-exist the Constitution, and a government that touches them overreaches its bounds. For example, the Ninth Amendment essentially says “if we’ve missed some of the citizens’ rights, then these, too, can’t be restricted by the government.”[xxxii] Note that these rights restrict the government, while modern activists want rights that expand government to provide new goodies.[xxxiii]

If an unconstitutional law is in place it is hard to get it overturned. Fighting off even the most blatantly wrong law takes lots of money and effort. And if you get a justice who favors that law – doesn’t it seem that only they get these cases? – this protracts the repeal efforts. So, passing an even obviously bad law could hurt many people for an awfully long time. When only those with enormous resources can get justice, then justice is generally denied. But that topic is out-of-scope for this article.

• Playing favorites when enforcing the law. “Nobody is above the law” is often said, but lots of people have charges dropped or overlooked because they “know somebody.” God doesn’t condone government favoritism (Leviticus 19:5), and these officials are “servants of God” (Romans 13:6) whether they like it or not. Some politicians are elected even though they’ve goals to overturn our Constitution.[xxxv] When laws are selectively applied then some citizens become more equal than others. When rioters aren’t arrested and prosecuted,[xxxvi] but their victims are,[xxxvii] then officials are participating in cancel culture.

A politician or bureaucrat practices cancel culture through denying some citizens their constitutional rights, and by treating groups differently depending on their political or cultural leanings. Consider these examples:

• Claims that your religious practices are illegal. Cultural activists create conflicts, inviting a District Attorney or Human Rights Commission to claim that you can’t actually practice your religious beliefs (James 2:14-26). Look how the Masterpiece Cakeshop was sued three times because the owner has Christian principles.[xxxviii] When a Commission, or a state’s attorney, works to disregard the accused’s religious rights, despite the First Amendment, it declares that some citizens have fewer rights than others. It also claims that a civil rights law is superior to the Constitution. These officials are trying to cancel the citizens and also our legal system.

• Create laws to ban your religious practices, and even force you to violate them. The Equality Act of 2020 would “prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation.”[xxxix] Besides its actual provisions, it forces the changes onto the public and invalidates any religious objections. It’s been called the “Criminalizing Christianity Act.” It amounts to a cultural revolution through legislative fiat. It’s blatantly unconstitutional, but if it gets passed in the future then just try to get justice.

It is good and necessary to defend our Christian-based culture

The Christian basis of our founding is still rather alive in America’s culture. If it weren’t then there wouldn’t be these fierce cultural battles. The people practicing cancel culture want to break resistance to their aims of a political coup. They apparently don’t want to wait for our culture to gradually come over to their views. Perhaps they’re afraid of repentant Christianity.

But before renewing an expensive and exhausting defense of our culture, we should review why we want it. Is it worth fighting for? It is, for these reasons:

• The Christian believes that God created us, and that through Jesus redeemed us to be His children. We’re living for His sake.

• God’s tells us what is right and wrong. No other standard will do. From the Bible we learn how to relate to God, to live in righteousness, and to live peaceably with each other.

• Our faith is acted out in daily life. It isn’t a faith of mere meditation, but also of activities and decisions coming from that faith (James 2:14-26).

• Our resulting society must be righteous and God-honoring, or else. God judges all nations, whether ancient Israel, the rest of the ancient world (Daniel 4:27-37; Jeremiah 18:7-10), or any modern nation (Luke 3:14; Acts 12:21-23). God holds all the world to his standards, and woe to them who spurn His reproof.[xli]

A Christian society will endure if its members maintain their standards, and teach their children to do likewise. But if it slacks off its watchkeeping, then people with other ideas will reach our children, training them instead in the humanist, socialist religion.[xlii]

Make our politicians respect our Constitutional rights

A person taking a seat in the U.S. Congress promises to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”[xliii] A similar oath is taken by members of the various state legislative bodies. But when a politician promises to “take back” guns (Second Amendment), or make the “Equality Act” override religious objections (First Amendment), isn’t that oath breaking? And why isn’t it called “dereliction of duty” when government overreach is shown to them and they won’t set things right? These legislators are trying to sneak through overrides of the Constitution without going through the amendment process, and that is wrong.

The people don’t have the tools to directly remove faithless legislators. For example, only Congress can remove its own members through expulsion. The best the people can do about those seats is to ensure that the offending politicians don’t win reelection. But there are still tools available to us. As former Senator Everett Dickson said, “when I feel the heat, I see the light”.[xliv] Heat costs dedication, time, and money. How hot do you want to make your politician? Even hard line progressives tend to love their perks more than their ideology, and will work to appease you.

Then there are politicians who take sides in the culture war and render unequal civic services. For example, how the mayors tell the police to stand aside during Antifa riots in Portland and Minneapolis, and when the district attorneys won’t charge the rioters. They’re not rendering equal justice, but instead discriminating based on politics. Surely there are any number of laws that these officials are breaking, and there are many suits that can be filed. Justice is expensive, very much so. But the choice seems to be either expensive justice or no justice.

One thing that cancel culture warriors do is to dig up dirt on their targets, and then tell everyone about it. In other words, they do investigative reporting. We can, too. The newspaper and on-air reporters tend to hide bad news about the politicians they like.[xlv] This means that other people are going to have to investigate these faithless politicians. It is likely that, once the news is out, they’ll be destroyed by their own friends.

Every remedy mentioned here involves giving lots of time and money, and learning how to work with like-minded people. But we must do these things, and pay the costs, because our politicians fail us. It’s the price of defending our Christian culture. It’s also a witness to our enemies, and the currently uninvolved, of how we value what we still have.

Beating censorship through diversity and anonymity

The internet has millions of sites, such as the one hosting this article. Out of all of them, Twitter and Facebook are considered the American “go to” places for news and announcements. But since they’ve proven to be unfaithful at that, Americans ought to relearn the habit of seeking out multiple news sources. We can’t literally force people off of these services, but through small efforts can start an exodus, which we hope leads to bigger things.

• Stop posting on Twitter and Facebook. If you post worthwhile content on Twitter, your posts only increase its viewership. Likewise, if your social club is hosted by Facebook, it increases their advertising numbers but doesn’t benefit you any. Go ahead and move your internet home to some other service. Wherever you land, your audience will still seek you out. They might even like the relief from sponsored ads.

• Stop reading Twitter or Facebook. There ought to be other, equivalent sources for your news and entertainment. And every defection from Twitter and Facebook drops their revenue stream. If you have sources which only appear on Twitter, such as a politician or a funny writer, ask them to also post their messages elsewhere. You’re now building your own “not Twitter” network.

• Advertise your own “goodbye” movement. Compared to their total viewership, there aren’t that many people getting cancelled by Twitter or Facebook. But if people get the idea that it’s trendy to leave, and start doing it, you will have started a movement.

But diversity doesn’t mean just visiting more web sites. The internet itself is an information bottleneck, a trap. If your communications are only through the internet, being blocked from it would leave you deaf and dumb. There is little solace in having our First Amendment rights if we’ve no place to practice them. There’s safety in having backup plans (Ecclesiastes 11:2). What sorts of alternative communications can there be?

• Printed newspapers. Newspapers have been dying in the internet era. This is partly because they put content on the internet for free, and partly because so many of the papers have the same progressive slant. They’re just not worth reading. Yet small town local news, such as a village town hall, goes unreported for lack of a printed forum. Wouldn’t locals want to buy a weekly paper if it contained local news? How about a paper whose reporting reflects the community’s values, rather than fighting against them? We can only hope…

• Email lists. Email lists are still used in places. Subscribers periodically get an email with news, articles, or comments from other subscribers. They then submit their responses back to the central service. Because the back-and-forth of an argument depends on sequential posts from the central server, a conversation might take days to resolve. The virtue here is that these communications are available “off the web.”

• FidoNet messaging network. Before the modern internet appeared, people could set up a network of communicating computers, using software called FidoNet. This network operated much like an email list does, but did its work using phone calls. It had great flexibility for routing messages, and could work even with part of the network out-of-service. It required an expert to configure, but it worked. It’s almost forgotten today. Want to set up a secretive network? Why not use a forgotten technology?

• The practice of printing and distributing handbills has always been with us. You see them under windshield wipers, slid onto screen doors, and attached to light poles. The whole neighborhood will know that your group has been there. Although how many flyers you can distribute is limited by your manpower, any number of groups can distribute copies of that flyer, wherever they might be. And when your groups coordinate, they’re gaining networking skills. Consider buying a genuine printing press, because using ordinary computer printers cost way more for the volumes of leaflets you’ll generate.

Once you’re a target, seemingly anything can be accessed if your opponents have clout. Who would have expected to lose their privacy in these circumstances?

• Obama got his opponents’ sealed divorce proceedings revealed. During the 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate, Obama’s campaign people twice got the newspapers to reveal divorce proceedings of his opponents.[xlvi] First came details about his Democratic primary opponent, then those of his Republican general election opponent. Sticking with a winning tactic, President Obama’s reelection campaign of 2012 tried, but failed, to get Mitt Romney’s tax records. Similar attempts are still being made to get President Trump’s tax records. That the courts are willing to reveal sealed records shows that government promises of confidentiality can’t be trusted.

• Donors to Proposition 8 revealed, harassed, and attacked. In 2008, California held an election concerning Proposition 8, which essentially banned “gay marriage.” Many people donated to the campaign trying to pass the measure. After the election, opponents of the measure got the list of campaign donors and published it. This led to donors getting harassed and attacked. [xlvii] Some donors suffered property loss. Others lost their jobs, once news of their donations came out.

• Cell phone tracking identifies rally participants, traces them home. In 2020, people protested at the Michigan state capitol about the coronavirus virus lockdown decrees. After they went home, much cell phone data was harvested by political advocates.[xlviii] This is because many protestors had set their phones to permit location tracking by third parties. Organizations like VoteMap, which works with Democratic political campaigns, got the data and was able to trace these people almost all the way home.

You can sometimes evade becoming a cancel culture target. You’re not required to broadcast your location to everybody. Whether you’re at home or away, if you stay “communications anonymous” then you can’t be singled out for later harassment. Here are ways to reduce, or hide, your own tracks.

• Avoid using your credit card when out and about. When you’re on the road and use your credit card, the company knows where your card has been. By looking at the details, people can make guesses about what you were doing between purchases. There are lots of credit card employees willing to breach their company’s secrecy and spill that data to activists. It’s better if that data doesn’t exist at all. Ask at some gas stations, and you’ll be surprised by how many people are paying with cash.

• Stifle your cell phone. When you let your phone’s location data be collected by others, as in the Michigan rally story, you’re asking that your activities get spied on. You can disable that yourself. Even so, all cell phones constantly seek out the nearest cell phone tower. They’re calling home, and leaving an auditable trail of where they’ve been, whether it is to a rally, to church, or to a restaurant. This tower seeking occurs even when the phone is supposedly turned off. Only removing the battery truly turns the phone off, but many phones don’t have removable batteries. You could leave the phone at home, or you could put the phone in a Faraday bag. This envelope-like wallet blocks all signals into or out of the pouch, preventing the phone from snitching on you. Be aware that if you take the phone out of the pouch it will resume announcing its position until it is put away again. These pouches are cheap ($20 or so) and readily available online – look them up.

• Avoid using a car having GPS or satellite radio. A car with GPS map navigation, or satellite radio, knows where you are. The location is presumably recorded, as with a cell phone. If you want to travel without being tracked, you’ll have to find ways to disable this communication. If you’re carrying a portable device, such as that from Garmin, then disconnect its battery. If the GPS or satellite radio is built in, perhaps you can disconnect the antennas (which might also disable your radio). You could also try adding a GPS jammer to your car, to overwhelm the car’s own GPS antennas.

When you centralize your communications you get easy, one-stop shopping for news, etc. You are also easily controlled. Pay the costs of diversification to preserve your own uncensored communications. By doing this you might even play a part in monopoly busting.

Continue transforming the world for Christ

Jesus says that the Kingdom of God is like yeast, affecting every corner of society (Matthew 13:33). Through our obedience to God, how we live, our relationships, and the standards we insist on, God’s church spreads throughout society and transforms it. We’re not in a lifeboat awaiting salvation, we’re of the Great Commission, making disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28:19-20). In the face of all trials, continue being the transforming yeast God wants us to be.[xlix]

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Chinese Translation – 中文翻译

With a thrill running up his leg, Chris exclaimed that Biden’s inaugural address was the best inaugural speech he’s ever heard! No, not THAT Chris—not Chris Matthews. Chris Wallace said it was the best. He was wrong. It wasn’t the best inaugural speech ever. It was the BEST SPEECH period. I’m tearing up just thinking about how best it was.

But wait, was it? Wouldn’t the best speech necessarily be a true and honest speech?

Biden said, “[A]t this hour, my friends, democracy has prevailed. … [T]he American story depends not on any one of us, not on some of us, but on all of us. … [T]o restore the soul and to secure the future of America—requires more than words. It requires that most elusive of things in a democracy: Unity. Unity.”

I love unity, unity, as much as the next gal or nonbinary human, but I’m wondering how the efforts of Big Tech, corporate behemoths, AOC, John Brennan, and other Democrats to cancel and crush anyone who expresses ideas they hate fulfill Biden’s quest for double the amount of unity we have right now.

Just a few nights ago on MSNBC, John Brennan cheerfully told lefty Nicole Wallace that the Biden administration is “moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about” the “insurgency” composed of “religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians.” Hmmm …

So, how does the Biden administration define these groups? Will the criteria used for identifying “religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists” and “libertarians” be made public? After the laser-focused secret police uncover the plot of Brennan’s enemies to compete freely in the market place of ideas, what will be done with the dissident freethinkers? Will they be forced into PBS’s “enlightenment camps” or will AOC’s “de-radicalizing” pogroms to cleanse America of conservative Christians take care of their disunifying presence?

In the service of doubling our unity, will Biden plead with Big Tech, Big Business, AOC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and Washington Post to call off their dogs, Overlords, and spy agencies?

Will Biden plead with the press to interrogate him fairly—you know, exactly as they interrogated President Trump? Will he plead with them to take off their soiled kid gloves?

Will Biden’s executive order mandating the sexual integration of children’s locker rooms, restrooms, and sports in government schools fulfill his quest for doubling our unity?

In the spirit of unity, will Biden acknowledge that the desire of girls and women to be free of the presence of opposite-sex persons in their private spaces is natural, normal, and good?

In his laser-like focus on unity, will Biden send “guidelines” to public schools recommending they no longer promote the controversial and divisive beliefs of the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory?

How does the leftist ideological monopoly in our colleges and universities double our unity or foster democracy? We know that in addition to unity, Biden is bigly into diversity. We also know that without diversity of thought, critical thinking is impossible. So, in the service of both unity and diversity, will Biden urge college and university administrators and faculty to seek equity among faculty? Will he implore them to work diligently toward ideological parity, perhaps threatening to withhold government funds until such parity is achieved?

Will Biden condemn the cancellation of conservative speakers on campuses and the refusal to invite conservative speakers to campuses?

Will he condemn Hollywood and book publishers for their anti-conservative bigotry and de facto censorship of movies, plays, and novels with themes that criticize “progressive” ideas or embody conservative themes?

Will he denounce ugly epithets like “homophobe,” “transphobe,” “hater” and “bigot” that are hurled continuously at any Catholic or Protestant who upholds the historic teaching of the church on sexual matters? Will he agree that Christians should be free to use pronouns that correspond to scientific reality and God’s created order? Will he agree that Christian business owners should be free to make employment and service decisions in accordance with their faith?

To double our unity, will Biden urge Americans to remove lawn signs that say, “Hate has no home here,” since all Americans know those signs are a passive macro-aggressive way of leftists calling their theologically orthodox Bible-believing neighbors—both Catholics and Protestants— “haters”?

In his effort to unify the country twice over, will Biden publicly acknowledge that the claim that homoerotic acts are moral is neither a scientific claim nor objectively true?

Democrats have demonstrated that they are gung-ho about calling in the National Guard and every weapon in our formidable military apparatus to prevent further violence in the Capitol. So, in an effort to multiple our unity, will Biden beseech the New York Times to offer former editorial page editor James Bennet his job back? Bennet was the editor who was forced to resign for publishing an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton in which Cotton argued that it was legitimate to call in the National Guard to quell the unremitting violence that roiled American cities last summer.

In his inaugural address, Biden said, “This is a great nation and we are a good people.” I’m confused. Critical Race theorists have been telling us for years—and emphasizing it through arson and looting—that America is a systemically evil nation conceived in racism and dedicated to the proposition that all people of color are inferior. So, which is it?

Biden said, “I ask every American to join me in this cause. Uniting to fight the common foes we face: Anger, resentment, hatred. Extremism, lawlessness, violence.” Later, on Inauguration Day, Antifa attacked a federal building in Portland. Has Biden condemned that lawless, violent attack by angry extremists? Did he label it an attack on democracy? Did he call it an insurrection?

While his inaugural address rightly condemned the “riotous mob” that used “violence” to attack the Capitol building, Biden said not one word about the riotous mobs that attacked federal buildings; monuments; private property; and police precincts, vehicles, and officers all summer. Why did his unifying address remain mute on that violence?

If and how Biden answers those questions will give Americans a better idea about whether he wants unity in diversity or unity by crushing diversity. We’ll know if this is the beginning of the Unity Games or—as Lady Gaga’s inaugural costume suggested—the Hunger Games.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Was-Bidens-Inaugural-Address-the-Best-Ever_audio.mp3

We urge you to pray for our state and nation, for our elected officials in Springfield and Washington D.C.  

PLEASE also consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work. We have stood firm for 25 years, working to boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy.

Videos have been circulating of young bestial thugs—whites and blacks, women and men—shrieking in the faces of al fresco diners, commanding them to raise a fist in solidarity with BLM/Antifa totalitarians. To leftists nothing says freedom quite like coerced performative acts. See for yourself the future of the Democratic Party:

Maybe these young bestial thugs never learned about Chairman Mao’s Cultural Revolution and the Red Guard composed of young people that Mao used to intimidate, humiliate, and attack his political enemies. The New York Times described the Red Guard’s efforts:

Students who answered Mao’s call for continuing revolution … targeted political enemies for abuse and public humiliation. … Under a campaign to wipe out the “Four Olds”—ideas, customs, culture, habits—they carried out widespread destruction of historical sites and cultural relics.

Or maybe today’s totalitarian culture-destroyers are inspired by the Red Guard, whose salute they mimic.

Before Chairman Mao thought to use easily indoctrinated youth to advance political oppression, the Nazi Regime had mastered the tactic. Here’s an eerily relevant description of the Nazi Party’s exploitation of German youth to advance the pernicious Nazi cause:

Millions of German young people were won over to Nazism in the classroom and through extracurricular activities. In January 1933, the Hitler Youth had approximately 100,000 members, but by the end of the year this figure had increased to more than 2 million. By 1937 membership in the Hitler Youth increased to 5.4 million before it became mandatory in 1939. The German authorities then prohibited or dissolved competing youth organizations.

Education in the Third Reich served to indoctrinate students with the National Socialist world view. Nazi scholars and educators glorified Nordic and other “Aryan” races, while labeling Jews and other so-called inferior peoples as parasitic “bastard races” incapable of creating culture or civilization.

After 1933, the Nazi regime purged the public school system of teachers deemed to be Jews or to be “politically unreliable.” Most educators, however, remained in their posts and joined the National Socialist Teachers League. 97% of all public school teachers, some 300,000 persons, had joined the League by 1936. In fact, teachers joined the Nazi Party in greater numbers than any other profession.

In the classroom and in the Hitler Youth, instruction aimed to produce race-conscious, obedient, self-sacrificing Germans who would be willing to die for Führer and Fatherland. Devotion to Adolf Hitler was a key component of Hitler Youth training. …

Schools played an important role in spreading Nazi ideas to German youth. While censors removed some books from the classroom, German educators introduced new textbooks that taught students love for Hitler, obedience to state authority, militarism, racism, and antisemitism.

Since some Americans—particularly leftists—struggle with analogical thinking, let’s paraphrase that description to make its relevance easily comprehensible:

Millions of American young people were won over to socialism/Critical Race Theory/“LGBTQ” theory/feminist theory in the classroom and through extracurricular activities. By 2020 membership in or support for what became known as the Intersectionality Regime had increased dramatically. Dominant leftist cultural forces had persecuted youth organizations like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts into reinventing themselves to align with the Intersectionality Regime.

Education in America served to indoctrinate students with the socialist/racialist/feminist/pansexual world view. Race, sexuality, “gender,” and Marxist scholars and educators glorified people of color, homosexuals, opposite-sex impersonators, and Marxists while labeling whites, men, heterosexuals, conservative Christians, and capitalists hateful oppressors and bigots incapable of creating culture or civilization.

The race/“gender”/sexuality/class Intersectionality Regime purged the public school system of teachers deemed to be members of the oppressor classes or to be “politically unreliable.” Most educators, however, remained in their posts and joined the race/“gender”/sexuality/class Intersectionality Regime. In fact, teachers joined the Intersectionality Regime in greater numbers than any other profession.

In the classroom, corporate boardrooms, social media, the arts, the mainstream press, and organizations like BLM™ and Antifa, instruction was aimed to produce race-conscious, class-conscious, man-hating, sexual-deviance-supporting activists who would take the fight to the streets. Devotion to the Intersectionality Regime was a key component of cultural conditioning.

Schools played an important role in spreading Intersectionality ideas to American youth. While censors removed some books from the classroom, educators introduced new textbooks that taught students love for socialism, racism, feminism, homosexuality, the “trans” ideology, and anti-Christianity.

Co-founder of the Toronto chapter of BLM™, Yusra Khogali, once tweeted, “White ppl are recessive genetic defects. this is factual. … black ppl simply through their dominant genes can literally wipe out the white race if we had the power to.” She tweeted, “Please Allah give me the strength to not … kill these … white folks out here today.” In 2015, she tweeted, “whiteness is not humxness. infact, white skin is sub-humxn.”

Kinda, sorta, maybe sounds like a Nazi talking about Jews.

Compulsory performance of the Sieg Heil/Red Guard/Black Panthers/BLM salute is part of the effort to compel freethinkers to pretend to embrace the ideas of slave reparations, systemic racism, and collective guilt, which hold individuals culpable for sins they have never committed.  The notion of collective guilt for the past sins of other individuals is both unbiblical and poisonous.

In a speech delivered in 1988 in Vienna on the 50^th anniversary of the Nazi occupation of his home country of Austria, Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl warned against the dangerous idea of “collective guilt”:

[M]y father … died in Theresienstadt Camp; my brother … did not return from Auschwitz; my mother … was killed in the gas chambers of the same camp; and my first wife[’s] …  young life came to an end in Bergen-Belsen Camp. And yet at the same time I will ask you not to expect to hear from my mouth a single word of hatred. For whom should I hate? I knew only the victims; I do not know the perpetrators—at least, not personally. And I categorically refuse to attribute collective as opposed to personal guilt.

There is no such thing as collective guilt. Believe me, today is not the first occasion on which I have said that. I have been saying it since the day I was liberated from my [fourth and] last concentration camp. It is my conviction that anyone who assigns collective guilt to every Austrian [or German] citizen between the ages of zero and fifty is committing a reprehensible and insane act. Or, to put it in psychiatric terms: it would be reprehensible if it were not insane–and it would be a relapse into the Nazi ideology of collective family guilt [the difficult German word Sippenhaftung here refers to the dangerous Nazi dogma of kin liability, tainted blood(line), or genetic guilt by association]. Let this be said to all those who believe they have the right to expect people to feel guilty or even ashamed of something they did not do or fail to do but something their parents or grandparents had to answer for. …

I’ll tell you I think there are only two ‘races’ of people: those who are decent people, and those who are not. That distinction goes right through every nation, and within nations right through every political party and every other group. Even in the concentration camps here and there we came across more or less decent people who belonged to the SS. And in the same way there were also scoundrels amongst the prisoners.

The decent people are in the minority; they have always been in the minority and, I think, always will be. But the danger lies elsewhere. The danger is to be found in a regime or a system which brings the scoundrels to the top; in other words which puts the reins of power in the hands of the worst representatives of the people. Therein lies the true peril. And no nation … can claim to be immune from such danger. Which is why I presume to say that in principle any country is capable of perpetrating the holocaust.

… In my view there are only two … types of politicians. The first is the politician who believes that the end justifies the means—any means, even terrorist means. The second type is profoundly aware that there are means that can desecrate even the most sacred ends.

[T]he need of the day … is that all men of good will should finally reach their hands out to each other across all the graves and divisions.”

One of my daughters once expressed disappointment that I hadn’t saved any of my clothes from the early 1970’s. I explained that although styles return, they never return in exactly the same form. Same goes for history, which explains why even remembering history doesn’t guarantee we won’t repeat it. Today’s cultural revolution has all the earmarks of past revolutions, and yet too few Americans recognize those earmarks because on the surface this one appears different.

Unless we tear the blinders from our eyes and look clearly at the big picture, the republic as we have known it will be gone in a short time. The children and grandchildren of Millennials will grow up in a world of oppression and depravity the likes of which America has never known but civilizations around the world and throughout history have.

Viktor Frankl points to the solution to evil in our midst:

[P]lease remember one thing: Resistance always requires heroism. And there is only one person of whom anyone has the right to expect heroic acts. And that is oneself.

Listen to this article read by Laurie: 

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/BLMs™-Totalitarian-Youth.mp3

Please consider making a donation to the Illinois Family Institute. 

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

As always, your gift to IFI is tax-deductible and greatly appreciated!

Written by Walter E. Williams

Most people who call themselves Marxists know very little of Karl Marx‘s life and have never read his three-volume “Das Kapital.” Volume I was published in 1867, the only volume published before Marx’s death in 1883. Volumes II and III were later edited and published in his name by his friend and collaborator Friedrich Engels. Most people who call themselves Marxists have only read his 1848 pamphlet “The Communist Manifesto,” which was written with Engels.

Marx is a hero to many labor union leaders and civil rights organizations, including leftist groups like Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and some Democratic Party leaders. It is easy to be a Marxist if you know little of his life. Marx’s predictions about capitalism and the “withering away of the state” turned out to be grossly wrong. What most people do not know is that Marx was a racist and an anti-Semite.

When the U.S. annexed California after the Mexican-American War, Marx wrote: “Without violence nothing is ever accomplished in history.” Then he asked, “Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?” Friedrich Engels added: “In America we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will be placed under the tutelage of the United States.” Many of Marx’s racist ideas were reported in “Karl Marx, Racist,” a book written by Nathaniel Weyl, a former member of the U.S. Communist Party.

In a July 1862 letter to Engels, in reference to his socialist political competitor Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx wrote:

It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother had not interbred with a nigger. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. The obtrusiveness of the fellow is also nigger-like.

In 1887, Paul Lafargue, who was Marx’s son-in-law, was a candidate for a council seat in a Paris district that contained a zoo. Engels claimed that Paul had “one eighth or one twelfth nigger blood.” In an April 1887 letter to Paul’s wife, Engels wrote, “Being in his quality as a nigger, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district.”

Marx’s anti-Semitic views were no secret. In 1844, he published an essay titled “On the Jewish Question.” He wrote that the worldly religion of Jews was “huckstering” and that the Jews’ god was “money.” Marx’s view of Jews was that they could only become an emancipated ethnicity or culture when they no longer exist. Just one step short of calling for genocide, Marx said, “The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.”

Marx’s philosophical successors shared ugly thoughts on blacks and other minorities. Che Guevara, a hero of the left, was a horrific racist. In his 1952 memoir, “The Motorcycle Diaries,” Guevara wrote,

The Negro is indolent and lazy and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent.

British socialist Beatrice Webb griped in The New Statesmen about declining birthrates among so-called higher races, which would lead to “a new social order” that would be created “by one or other of the colored races, the Negro, the Kaffir or the Chinese.” The Soviets espoused the same “Jewish world conspiracy” as the Nazis. Joseph Stalin embarked upon a campaign that led to the deaths of Jewish intellectuals for their apparent lack of patriotism. By the way, the Soviet public was not told that Karl Marx was Jewish. Academics who preach Marxism to their classes fail to tell their students that his ideology has led to the slaughter of tens of millions of people. What’s worse, they fail to even feign concern over this fact.

White liberals are useful idiots. BLM, Antifa, and other progressive groups use the plight of poor blacks to organize left-leaning, middle-class, college-educated, guilt-ridden suburbanite whites. These people who topple statues and destroy public and private property care about minorities as much as their racist predecessors. Their goal is the acquisition and concentration of power and Americans have fallen hook, line, and sinker for their phony virtue signaling.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Written by Dr. Everett Piper

I have said it a thousand times.

Ideas matter.

What is taught today in our classrooms will be practiced tomorrow in our culture. Teach self-actualization rather than self-restraint in your schools, and you are going to get a bunch of self-obsessed, perpetual children throwing tantrums in your streets.

Garbage in. Garbage out.

Teach narcissism, and you get a bunch of narcissists.

Spend more time showing young boys how to use a condom than teaching them how to be men of character and don’t be surprised with Matt Lauer and Harvey Weinstein.

Teach lechery, and you get lechers.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will become the philosophy of the government in the next.” Hitler agreed, “Let me control the textbooks, and I will control the state.”

Why do you see a gaggle of arrogant adolescents strutting the halls of Washington, D.C.? We produced them. We taught them to behave this way. We created this monster. This situation is of our own making. These people are our fault. They are the product of our local schools, our colleges and our universities.

Some of you might be tempted to dismiss this. You might be inclined to say that you don’t care that much about this topic because you’re not in college any longer, or you don’t have children or grandchildren headed off to the ivory tower this fall. This is the next generation’s problem.

Well, you’re wrong.

This is your problem, and it’s your problem in spades.

Just turn on the news.

Just read the paper.

Just pick up your smartphone or open your laptop.

If the burning cars, destroyed monuments and broken windows in Minneapolis, Seattle and New York haven’t caught your attention, what will? If tearing down statues of Frederick Douglass isn’t a bridge too far, what is?

Our culture is collapsing right before our eyes, and it is clear where the responsibility lies. Our nation’s educational establishment is to blame.

If we don’t admit this and admit it now, our country and culture are lost.

John Adams once wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He knew that for any nation to survive, it must have a moral and religious glue to bind it together, or it will die for lack of definition.

It will suffer the fate of the Bolshevik, French or Cultural Revolutions. It will fall for the lies of the likes of Robespierre, Lenin or Mao.

The American experiment was and is the singular exception to the guillotine and the gulag.

Why?

Because ours was a revolution driven by the Creator rather than the created. It was a revolution grounded in self-evident truths rather than self-righteousness arrogance. It was a fight for liberty rather than license. It was a battle for freedom rather than safety, for principles rather than power.

And where do these principles, these moral and religious truths, come from? They are passed from one generation to another through our schools. Our Founding Fathers knew this. This is why they founded Harvard, Dartmouth, Princeton and Yale — all chartered expressly in the principles of biblical Christianity.

All these colleges were created to educate a free people, a moral people, a people who could and would control themselves, a people of personal restraint, a people of private and public virtue. These schools were founded to create a nation of biblical character and individual integrity.

Remove this cornerstone from our culture, and the house crumbles. When our schools rot, the fish stinks from the head down.

Our nation stands on the very precipice of hell, and your local school district thinks fomenting victimization, anger, balkanization and division is the solution.

Your neighborhoods are burning, and your schools rush to throw the gasoline of resentment, recompense and revenge on the fire.

Your teacher unions and many of their members march in solidarity with Marxists while they malign capitalism. They defend the destruction of Antifa. They applaud the divisiveness of BLM. They wave their rainbow banners while disparaging our country’s flag. They deny the science of X and Y chromosomes while calling you a science denier. They extol socialism while condemning free enterprise. They teach the racism of critical race theory. They tout the intolerance of intersectionality. They demand the privilege of denouncing your privilege. They use your sons and daughters as pawns in their ugly game of power and politics. They proudly boast of judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.

And they teach your children to do the same.

Yeah, that’ll solve the problem, won’t it?

The house is aflame, and your schools hold the match.

Dr. Everett Piper (dreverettpiper.com, @dreverettpiper), a columnist for The Washington Times, is a former university president and radio host. He is the author of “Not a Daycare: The Devastating Consequences of Abandoning Truth” (Regnery). This article was originally published at The Washington Times.

I had awarded Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey the award for Most Cringeworthy Performative Act/photo op of 2020 for his fake body-wracking sobbing while kneeling at George Floyd’s casket. Frey’s performative act/photo op topped even that of the genuflecting congressional thespians adorned in culturally appropriated African kente-clothe scarves led by prayer warrior Nancy Pelosi.

You might want to take some Zofran 30 minutes before watching this:

But now I must rescind the award and give it to the dozen apparently racist celebrities publicly confessing and self-flagellating before the Black Lives Matter Crusaders for their collective, systemic white transgressions.

In melodramatically somber tones, lesbian Sarah Paulson, Aaron Paul, bisexual Kesha (formerly Ke$ha), Bethany Joy Lenz, Kristen Bell, Justin Theroux,  Debra Messing, Mark Duplass, Bryce Dallas Howard (Ron Howard’s daughter), Julianne Moore, Piper Perabo, Stanley Tucci, Ilana Glazer, and gymnast Aly Raisman are taking responsibility for “every unchecked moment, for every time it was easier to ignore than to call it out for what it was, for every not-so-funny joke, every unfair stereotype, every blatant injustice, no matter how big or small, every time” they “remained silent,” and “every time” they “explained away police brutality, or turned a blind eye.”

Eleven of the twelve sanctimonious celebrities work in an industry rife with sexism and exploitation of women and now we learn they are also, apparently, guilty of racism. While profiting from one of the most hypocritical and destructive industries in the country that creates and promotes soft-core porn and glorifies violence, all these self-indulgent, privileged celebrities are now confessing to being racists.

Are they really responsible for every not-so-funny joke, unfair stereotype, and blatant injustice in the world? Did all twelve of them really explain away police brutality? If that’s true, they have a lot to atone for.

The moralizers/offenders identify what they see from their snazzy digs:

Black people are being slaughtered in the streets, killed in their own homes. Going for a job should not be a death sentence. Sleeping in your own home should not be a death sentence. Playing video games with your nephew should not be a death sentence. Shopping in a store should not be a death sentence. Business as usual should not be life-threatening.

No disagreement. Is there anyone in America who believes black people should be slaughtered in the streets, killed in their own homes, killed while playing video games with their relatives, or killed while shopping?

But is there a pervasive problem with black people being slaughtered in the streets, killed in their own homes, or murdered while shopping? Well, yes, there is, but the slaughtering of blacks—including innocent children sitting on their porches, sleeping in their beds, and walking home from school—is being committed primarily by young black men raised without fathers.

Here are some data from scholar Heather MacDonald that the celebrity social justice warriors may want to consider:

However sickening the video of Floyd’s arrest, it isn’t representative of the 375 million annual contacts that police officers have with civilians. A solid body of evidence finds no structural bias in the criminal-justice system with regard to arrests, prosecution or sentencing. Crime and suspect behavior, not race, determine most police actions.

In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population.

The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.

On Memorial Day weekend in Chicago alone, 10 African-Americans were killed in drive-by shootings. Such routine violence has continued—a 72-year-old Chicago man shot in the face on May 29 by a gunman who fired about a dozen shots into a residence; two 19-year-old women on the South Side shot to death as they sat in a parked car a few hours earlier; a 16-year-old boy fatally stabbed with his own knife that same day. This past weekend, 80 Chicagoans were shot in drive-by shootings, 21 fatally, the victims overwhelmingly black. Police shootings are not the reason that blacks die of homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined; criminal violence is. …

A 2015 Justice Department analysis of the Philadelphia Police Department found that white police officers were less likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot unarmed black suspects. Research by Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer Jr. also found no evidence of racial discrimination in shootings. Any evidence to the contrary fails to take into account crime rates and civilian behavior before and during interactions with police.

Of course, everyone knows the celebrity pontificators aren’t really confessing and don’t really feel guilty. They’re doing what socially insular, intellectually myopic, presumptuous, and self-righteous celebrities do best: scold the deplorables—oh, and act.

What other icky cultural manifestations of kowtowing to the destructive Marxist ideologies of BLM and Antifa fascists are emerging? Here are a few:

• As of this writing, Seattle, a sanctuary city with a plague of homelessness, is now a lawless Antifa/BLM enclave, which has been named the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” (CHAZ). At the command of political leaders, Seattle police surrendered the entire 6-block area to anarchists, including their own police precinct, which has been renamed “Seattle People’s Department East Precinct.” Leftists promptly erected borders around their zone and appointed a defacto armed police department. Lawlessness and chaos–which ultimately result in tyranny–are the logical ends of “progressivism.” Next up, the Purge. If current policemen all across this once-great nation walked off the job and BLM members took over “protecting” our rights and communities, would we have less racism, fewer bad “cops,” and communities better suited for human flourishing? I wonder if any businesses will open stores or corporate headquarters in Seattle? I wonder if any families will move there? Other than anarchists and zombies, who will want to move there?

• There are a number of candidates vying for the title of “Progressive” Hypocrite of the Pandemic Year. Top of the list is Michigan governor Christine Whitmer, or as Andrew Klavan calls her, “Obersturmfuhrer Whitmer, ” who prohibited Michiganders from buying seeds or paint when they were shopping at Home Depot, who told Michiganders not to travel north on Memorial Day weekend as her husband traveled north on Memorial Day weekend to get their essential boat on the water early, and who banned lawn care workers from mowing lawns—alone. Well, here she is marching shoulder-to-shoulder with BLM. Sheltering in place is good for thee but not for she when there’s a campaign for the vice presidency that needs a photo op. #PerformativeAct
  Does anyone think that if there had been hundreds of thousands of conservatives marching peacefully in streets for the past two weeks to protest the crushing quarantine—with zero rioting, arson, looting, and brick-throwing—that leftist quarantine zealots would have been silent? Or would there have been mass rage, rending of clothes, and sanctimonious scoldings over the iniquitous disregard for human life demonstrated by demonstrators?

• The mob is coming for your jobs. John Daniel Davidson writing for The Federalist warns that your position on BLM has consequences:

There will be no opting out of the Black Lives Matter movement. You’re either for BLM or against it—and if you’re against it, you’re a racist. You will either support BLM publicly and enthusiastically, or you will be harassed, shunned, and shamed out of mainstream America. If you dare to speak a word against BLM, you will be targeted, mobbed, and probably fired.

• Leftists now want to burn books (and movies and historical monuments), but since they can’t actually say that, they had to figure out a way to conceal that they want to burn books. What to do, what to do? 💡Brainstorm!Just rename book-burning. Call it “decolonizing your bookshelf.” Oh, and when you’re done with all that decolonizing, call the Firemen:

Coloured people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it. Someone’s written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. (Captain Beatty, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury).

We just put our American flag up at our house. I think it’s going to stay up for a while. I am deeply thankful to live in America where “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and where our forefathers wrote, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

This is a remarkable country built on principles that enable it to become “a more perfect Union” as long as we remember the Creator who endowed us with Rights. Without a Creator, there exist no unalienable Rights. Without a Creator, there exist no transcendent truths, no moral absolutes. Un-created human lives don’t matter. Un-created humans create and inhabit a world of highly intelligent dogs eating dogs.

I hope Christians who, in the face of slander, hostility, and threats, offer feeble, vapid defenses of their silence on issues that both culture and Scripture address realize that 1. We the people are the government, 2. Children are watching as parents model cowardice and rationalization, and 3. Silent capitulators are feeding the behemoth that will devour their children’s and grandchildren’s hearts, minds, liberty, and maybe their bodies.

But by all means continue. Take up your crosses daily, and hide them in the basement.

Listen to this article read by Laurie: 

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/nauseating-performative-acts-by-celebrity-racists.mp3

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

New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees, a committed Christian, and, before last week, deeply admired and liked by people of all colors and no color, committed an almost unforgivable sin. He said this in response to a specific question about athletes kneeling during the national anthem:

I will never agree with anybody disrespecting the flag of the United States of America or our country. Let me just tell you what I see or what I feel when the national anthem is played, and when I look at the flag of the United States. I envision my two grandfathers, who fought for this country during World War II, one in the Army and one in the Marine Corp, both risking their lives to protect our country and to try to make our country and this world a better place. Every time I stand with my hand over my heart, looking at that flag, and singing the national anthem, that’s what I think about, and in many cases, it brings me to tears thinking about all that has been sacrificed, not just [by] those in the military, but … those throughout the civil rights movements of the ’60s, and everyone, and all that has been endured by so many people up until this point. And is everything right with our country right now? No, it’s not. We still have a long way to go, but I think what you do by standing there and showing respect to the flag with your hand over your heart, is it shows unity. It shows that we are all in this together, we can all do better and that we are all part of the solution.” (emphasis added)

“Progressives” became apoplectic and splenetic. Judging from their attacks, one would think Brees had publicly celebrated Derek Chauvin.

Under withering attacks, Brees offered two apologies because the mob hated his first one. Then his wife, Brittany Brees, issued an apology in which she said,

Somehow we as white America … can feel good about not being racist, feel good about loving one another as God loves us. We can feel good about educating our children about the horrors of slavery and history. We can read books to our children about Martin Luther King, Malcolm X., Hank Aaron, Barack Obama, Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman.. and feel like we are doing our part to raise our children to love, be unbiased and with no prejudice. To teach them about all of the African Americans that have fought for and risked their lives against racial injustice. Somehow as white Americans we feel like that checks the box of doing the right thing. Not until this week did Drew and I realize THAT THIS IS THE PROBLEM. To say “I don’t agree with disrespecting the flag” .. I now understand was also saying I don’t understand what the problem really is, I don’t understand what you’re fighting for, and I’m not willing to hear you because of our preconceived notions of what that flag means to us. That’s the problem we are not listening, white America is not hearing. We’re not actively LOOKING for racial prejudice.

If saying “I don’t agree with disrespecting the flag” also says “I don’t understand what the problem really is,” then does kneeling during the national anthem mean both “America is systemically racist” and “I don’t understand why you value the flag and national anthem. I don’t understand what you see that’s good in America. I’m not willing to hear you because of our view of America as pervasively evil and whites as oppressors”?

Unlike Brittany Brees, I can’t speak for all of white America. I don’t know what all of white America feels. But I do know that for a lot of white Americans, teaching our children about the horrors of slavery and lynchings, about Jim Crow laws, and about Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Hank Aaron, Jesse Owens, and the Tuskegee Airmen is not about “feeling good.” Raising our children to love others, to hate bigotry, and to stand up for mistreated friends is not about “feeling good” or “checking boxes.” It’s not about virtue-signaling or pride. It’s about serving Christ. It’s about loving our neighbors as ourselves. It’s about truth.

“Progressives” argue that people who explicitly condemn police brutality and all forms of bigotry and who have never said or done anything racist are the problem if they don’t endorse kneeling during the national anthem. Just curious, does that principle of collective guilt apply to all egregious sin? Are people who explicitly oppose the sexual exploitation of women and children in pornography, strip clubs, prostitution, and sex trafficking, and who have never viewed porn, visited a strip club, hired a prostitute, or trafficked women and children a problem? Should they kneel during the national anthem as a protest against the many Americans who watch porn, leer at women in strip clubs, hire prostitutes, and/or traffic in women and children? Are our flag and national anthem now symbols of the poisonous systemic abuse of women and children that colleges and universities promote through courses that celebrate porn? Are Americans who explicitly oppose the sexual exploitation of women and children, who are pro-actively teaching their children about its evil, and who have never been complicit in it via using porn, visiting strip clubs, hiring prostitutes, or sex-trafficking, the problem if they are not “actively” looking for the sexual exploitation of women and children?

Former NFL player Shannon Sharpe said this about Drew Brees’s response to an interviewer’s question about the knee-taking of athletes:

[Drew] issued an apology … but it’s meaningless because the guys know he spoke his heart the very first time around. I don’t know what Drew’s going to do, but he probably should just go ahead and retire now. He will never be the same. Take it from a guy that has been a leader in the locker room for a number of years. What he said, they will never look at him the same because he spoke his heart. It wasn’t what he said, it was how he said it. He was defiant. I will NEVER [yes, Sharpe shouted that defiantly] respect the man.

BTW, Brees did not speak defiantly as Sharpe falsely claimed—making Sharpe, therefore, a slanderer. Don’t believe me? Well, watch it yourself and see if you think Brees was “defiant”:

Sharpe expresses the “progressive” view of “tolerance,” and this is why “progressivism” will destroy both freedom and the country. Brees saying that he disagrees with knee-taking during the national anthem while at the same time saying the flag represents the sacrifices made during the Civil Rights era and acknowledging that right now we have a lot of work yet to do renders him—in Sharpe’s repugnant view—unsuitable for employment or respect.

Brees’s teammate Malcolm Jenkins castigated him too saying,

Drew Brees, if you don’t understand how hurtful, how insensitive your comments are, you are part of the problem. To think that because your grandfathers served in this country and you have a great respect for the flag that everybody else should have the same ideals and thoughts that you do is ridiculous. And it shows that you don’t know history. Because when our grandfathers fought for this country and served and they came back, they didn’t come back to a hero’s welcome. They came back and got attacked for wearing their uniforms. They came back to people, to racism, to complete violence.”

Brees never said anything like “everybody else should have the same ideals and thoughts” that he does. Moreover, Brees is justified in valuing the service of his grandfathers, and he is justified in his respect and love for America—the country to which emigrants the world over seek entry. He’s justified in loving America for her founding—though imperfectly realized—principles. He’s justified in celebrating the incredible integration of peoples of diverse races, ethnicities, and religions in America. He’s justified in appreciating how far we’ve come since slavery and Jim Crow laws.

It is possible for whites both to value the sacrifice and service of their fathers and grandfathers and to feel contempt for the injustice of black fathers and grandfathers being ill-treated following their service and sacrifice.

Vietnam war veterans—both black and white—were spit on by liberals when they returned home. Do we hold liberals who, not only didn’t engage in such behavior but also condemn it, accountable for that injustice? Do we blame such ugly behavior committed by some liberals fifty years ago on all of America? Does the American flag and national anthem symbolize their repugnant acts?

Jenkins continued,

And then here we are in 2020, with the whole country on fire, everybody witnessing a black man dying—being murdered—at the hands of the police, just in cold blood for everybody to see. The whole country’s on fire, and the first thing that you do is criticize one’s peaceful protest that was years ago when we were trying to signal a sign for help and signal for our allies and our white brothers and sisters, the people we consider to be friends, to get involved? It was ignored. And here we are now with the world on fire and you still continue to first criticize how we peacefully protest because it doesn’t fit in what you do and your beliefs without ever acknowledging that the fact that a man was murdered at the hands of police in front of us all and that it’s been continuing for centuries, that the same brothers that you break the huddle down with before every single game, the same guys that you bleed with and go into battle with every single day go home to communities that have been decimated.

Brees didn’t “continue to first criticize.” He has not been continually criticizing the kneeling protests. He didn’t initiate discussion of the topic. Brees was asked by an interviewer what he would do if teammates kneeled during the national anthem.

And while Brees didn’t mention George Floyd, he did acknowledge the suffering of the black community. To remind Jenkins, this is what Brees said:

[I]t brings me to tears, thinking about all that has been sacrificed, not just [by] those in the military, but … [by] those throughout the civil rights movements of the ’60s, and everyone, and all that has been endured by so many people up until this point. And is everything right with our country right now? No, it’s not. We still have a long way to go. … we can all do better and … we are all part of the solution.

What exactly did Jenkins mean when he said the kneeling protests were “ignored”? Likely he meant that there were many people who didn’t participate or support the protest. In other words, in Jenkins’ view, the only acceptable way to help decimated black communities is to protest the national anthem. But then isn’t Jenkins doing exactly what he accuses Brees of doing? Isn’t he demanding that everyone believe what he believes about the protests, the flag, and the national anthem?

Jenkins is ignoring that there are white people and black people trying to help decimated black communities. They’ve been trying for years, but they’re shouted down and called bigots for having different views than white and black liberals on how to solve the problems of racism and urban blight. Here are some of their ideas:

• How should we address actual racism committed by racist individuals in police departments—most of which are controlled by liberals? Punish them and/or get rid of them. How do we do that? Revisit/reform “qualified immunity” and policies that conceal police misconduct and protect brutal cops.

• How should we address crime in black communities? Work on transforming society by getting rid of no-fault divorce and using every resource available to promote true marriage and discourage out-of-wedlock pregnancies. Intact families with a mother and a father are the greatest protections against poverty and crime. And when crime is reduced in communities, businesses will move in.

• How do we improve education? Offer impoverished families school choice and end teachers’ unions that promote destructive policies and protect lousy teachers. And stop teaching divisive and false ideas from organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center’s education arm Teaching Tolerance, or Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States, or The 1619 Project that present imbalanced views of American history and teach children of color that because of white oppression, they have no hope of moving up in the world.

• How do we help blacks improve their financial position? Deregulate businesses and reduce taxes in order to grow the economy, thereby providing jobs.

• How do we help eradicate bigotry, bitterness, and hatred? We preach the gospel—the whole gospel.

If Jenkins is concerned about the decimation in his community, why attack Brees? Why not attack “progressives” who have run the cities in which those decimated communities subsist? Why not attack the racism profiteers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who make bank by fomenting racial division? Why not attack liberal leaders who deny school choice to poor black families? Why not attack teachers’ unions that protect lousy teachers in failing schools? Why not attack fatherlessness that results in criminality? Why not attack Black Lives Matter (BLM) that seeks to dismantle families, which are the single best hope for black children?

Here are just some of BLM’s principles and goals:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking.

Note that mothers and parents are mentioned but not fathers.

Are those principles and goals helpful to black children? Are they unifying? Are they good?

Jenkins was not done with his accusatory screed:

Drew, unfortunately, you’re somebody who doesn’t understand their privilege. You don’t understand the potential that you have to actually be an advocate for the people that you call brothers.

Will Jenkins stand behind whites who advocate for school choice, true marriage, and the end of teachers’ unions? Will Jenkins cheer whites who advocate against premarital sex and out-of-wedlock births? Will Jenkins cheer whites who advocate for the end of divisive, destructive diversity training and The 1619 Project that teach lies and foster division? Will Jenkins cheer for whites who advocate the ideas of Candace Owens, Thomas Sowell, Ben Carson, Bob Woodson and “1776 Unites” project? Or are whites expected to advocate for only ideas and policies that Jenkins, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Nikole Hannah-Jones and her 1619 Project scam promulgate?

Liberals have had fifty years to solve the problems endemic to urban communities of color—including eight years with a black president whose presidency saw black unemployment and racial division surge. Is Jenkins willing to listen to the ideas of others on how to help, how to advocate, how to get involved? Is he willing to listen to diverse ideas on how to rebuild suffering communities? Or will he say to black conservatives what he said to Brees: “you should shut the f–k up.”

It’s ironic that progressives have controlled most major cities for decades and have been forcing Americans in government schools and the corporate world to endure years of “diversity training,” “sensitivity” sessions, and “social justice” indoctrination, and yet we just suffered through the worst race riots since 1968 when Boomers and their rotten ideas began corrupting academia.

Their rotten ideas have—as expected and predicted—produced rotten fruit that is poisoning the hearts and minds of Americans. Race relations had been improving slowly but surely until the Boomers’ ideas seeped from sullied towers in bastions of idiocy like Berkeley to countless colleges and universities and then into high schools. Peggy McIntosh, White Privilege Conferences, and Howard Zinn’s revisionist history of the United States turned young teens’ minds into burbling cauldrons of contempt for America and its founding principles—those very principles that had brought us so far from the days of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and red-lining. With an erroneous understanding of American history, young Americans falsely believe that America was and remains a wholly evil country that must be destroyed and rebuilt in the recriminatory image of “progressives.”

Former NFL coach and Christian Tony Dungy, who likes and respects Drew Brees, expressed disappointment with his initial comments. Dungy said that “we need unifying voices, not divisive voices.” Dungy’s comments were disappointing in that he didn’t address the divisiveness of Black Lives Matter, Antifa, The 1619 Project, Critical Race Theory, or people like Al Sharpton. He didn’t address the divisiveness of the attacks on Drew Brees for saying—when asked—that he doesn’t agree with kneeling during the national anthem. But you see, Dungy wasn’t asked about any of that, just like Brees was not asked specifically about George Floyd.

Two apologies from Drew Brees and one long one from Mrs. Brees, all of which suggest they have joined BLM. These apologies bring to mind Winston Smith at the end of 1984. Sadly, it doesn’t take torture to get grown men (and women) to capitulate to a destructive ideology. All it takes today is a barrage of insults.

Every day, we see across America signs of hope and progress. We see interracial couples, multi-racial churches, multi-racial groups of friends, and upwardly mobile black families. Is America perfect? Of course not. No society can ever be perfect because humans are fallen creatures. Fallen creatures hate. People of all colors hate. But our founding principles are good, and they are guiding us toward better.

Over a dozen years ago, while working at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Illinois, I was helping a high school junior on her paper for American Studies (still co-taught by the same two teachers today). She cheerily told me that by the end of first semester in American Studies, she hated America and hated being an American. “Social justice” mission accomplished.

Listen to this article read by Laurie: 

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Drew-Brees-the-Mob.mp3

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

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

Black lives do matter, but not because they’re black—which, as “progressives” continually tell us—is just a social construct. Black lives matter not because of the color of their skin but because they are human lives created in the image and likeness of God and endowed by God with unalienable, intrinsic rights.

Since society is composed of fallen humans with desperately wicked hearts, many forces conspire against blacks, including some toxic systemic forces that demand solutions. Few if any of these solutions are proposed by Black Lives Matter (BLM), Antifa, or the Democratic Party. In fact, in the grimy, grasping quest for power of BLM, Antifa, and “progressives,” they double-down on the policies and cancerous ideologies that undergird those policies, thereby increasing their own political power and the suffering of those whose votes they covet.

Because black lives matter, here are some ideas for uprooting or transforming malignant systemic dysfunction that harms black (and red, yellow, brown, and white) lives:

• Because black babies matter, we should end the barbaric practice of feticide that results in a disproportionate number of black babies being slaughtered every year.

• Because black women matter, we should create a public service campaign like no other—one that encourages men to marry women before having sex with them, or to marry women they impregnate.

• Because black children matter, this public service campaign should urge mothers and fathers to stay together. There is no greater protection against poverty and criminality than being raised by both a mother and father in an intact family. Fatherless homes reliably produce boys vulnerable to gangs who are tutored in the ways of criminality and then grow up to commit violent crimes against their own communities, thereby demonstrating that black lives don’t matter to them.

• Because black families matter, tax policy and public aid should incentivize marriage and employment.

• Because black families matter, they have a right to safe schools and to school choice. Black families living in deteriorating and dangerous urban communities (most of which have long been run by Democrats) should have choices regarding where their children are educated.

• Because black children matter, teachers’ unions must be eradicated. Teachers’ unions protect the jobs of terrible teachers, and through excessive pensions are impoverishing already cash-strapped states which then pass these costs on to taxpayers.

• Because black children matter, government schools should not propagate as truth ideologically biased ideas like those found in The 1619 Project or Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States. Teaching erroneous history and/or teaching that America is a country of unparalleled oppression and racial bigotry in which blacks cannot positively affect their own futures does a grave disservice to blacks and truth. Such inaccurate resources foster divisiveness rather than unity or love of the principles on which this country was founded. Untruthful depictions of America’s history in either direction—intensification or minimization of failures— are wrong. It is leftist ideas embedded in “teaching for social justice” that foster hatred of America and racial division. These ideas cultivate feelings of bitterness, resentment, and envy on the parts of “people of color” toward colorless people who have never harmed them. And these ideas cultivate the false belief in communities of color that improving their lots in life is impossible unless colorless people who have committed no sin of racial oppression take the knee.

• Because black lives matter, police unions that protect brutal police officers must be reformed. In a recent National Review article titled “It’s Past Time to Examine How Police Unions Protect Bad Cops,”  John Fund draws attention to an article in the Stanford Law Review in which Katherine Bies writes,

[D]uring the rise of police unions to political power in the 1970s, police unions lobbied for legislation that shrouded personnel files in secrecy and blocked public access to employee records of excessive force or other officer misconduct. Today, these officer misconduct confidentiality statutes continue to prohibit public disclosure of disciplinary records related to police shootings and other instances of excessive force. … [P]olice unions often strategically frame any opposition to their agenda of secrecy as endangering public safety and harming the public interest. However, police unions often conflate “the public interest” with the private interests of police officers. … Additionally, police unions have established highly developed political machinery that exerts significant political and financial pressure on all three branches of government.  

• Because black women, men, and children matter, we should address the existence and easy accessibility of pornography that is destroying families.

• Because black families matter, we should rethink legalized gambling and recreational marijuana that are hurting families economically and spiritually.

• Because black lives matter, celebrities should throw their hefty influence behind all these life-affirming proposals through their music, films, streaming programs, and tweets.

Because black lives matter, theologically orthodox Christians must better employ their creativity and tenacity in figuring out how to “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.” Because black lives matter, they—like people of all colors and no color—must hear the good news that in Christ “there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.”

Pastor Doug Wilson exposes the worldly “rival reconciliation project” that exacerbates  division and arouses hatred:

[B]ecause secular man has rejected the one in whom we all live and move and have our being, all his attempts are of necessity a downward integration into the void. Their proud project of universal toleration consistently spirals downward into the acids of hatred and violence.

In America, because of our Christian heritage, this project is an attempt to reconcile the trappings of traditional Christianity with the central dogmas of cultural Marxism, and it represents the high water mark of duncical folly. It is an attempt to reconcile squares and circles, good and evil, light and darkness, folly and wisdom, God and the devil. The cosmic reconciliation purchased by Christ has nothing whatever to do with this sort of monstrosity. …

The reason the streets of Minneapolis are on fire is because secular man in his pretended wisdom has been trying to reconcile two completely different methods of reconciliation — the way of atonement through the blood of Christ together with his way of accusation, recrimination, reparations, and retribution. …

But there can be no peace between the God of forgiveness and the god of recrimination, the God of no condemnation and the god of all condemnation.

Should we reconcile blacks and whites who were caught up in bitter enmity with each other? Of course. That is what the gospel does. Should we try to reconcile the world’s way of reconciling with God’s way of reconciling? Of course not. The world’s way only foments more and more bitterness, while God’s way breaks down the middle wall of partition. The world’s way is impotent, and God’s way saves to the uttermost.

There are many Christians who do not see what is happening, and who do not understand a blessed thing about it, but who are trying to help out with this monstrosity by decking out the secularist approach to reconciliation in the language of Christian reconciliation. They point out that ethnic reconciliation is a good thing in Scripture, which is true enough, but then they want to drape the Christian language of reconciliation over the secular way of doing it, which contains no authority, no sap, no salt, and no blood.

The short form of this atrocious compromise is this: Because the blood of Christ puts all ethnic enmities to death, we think we can just go straight to the group hug, declare all ethnic enmities a form of bigotry and a violation of America’s core values, and dispense with the blood of Christ. And then we wonder where all this hatred is coming from.

Listen to this article read by Laurie: 

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Because-Black-Lives-Matter_audio.mp3

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

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

Overt, organized violent riots over the weekend escalated in such a way that the governors in twenty-three states thought it was necessary to activate the National Guard to augment local police efforts. In Illinois, these riots were not limited to downtown Chicago but spilled over into various city neighborhoods and suburbs like Arlington Heights, Richton Park, Calumet City, Tinley Park, Riverside, Orland Park, Blue Island, and Lansing. In Dolton, rioters thought it was a good idea to throw a brick through the window of Christ Oasis Church.

Other large municipalities also saw similar violence, including Aurora, Rockford, Waukegan, Champaign, Joliet, Springfield, and Peoria,

Reports of the peaceful protests, of which there were a few, were overshadowed by wall-to-wall news coverage of violence, vandalism, looting, and arson locally and in cities across the nation. In Washington D.C., “the church of the presidents” was set on fire by godless insurgents. The damage to St. John’s Church (est. 1816) symbolizes our culture’s rejection of God. Perhaps God has lifted His hand of protection in response to our rebellion and indifference to His precepts.

It was encouraging to hear Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot and Police Superintendent David Brown confirm the suspicions of many that the attacks were coordinated. Listen to their remarks:

Similarly, Minnesota’s attorney general and left-wing “progressive” Keith Ellison told Fox News Sunday that he has “evidence that outsiders have been present and, in some cases, have played a very negative role” in the riots.

There is little doubt who led these attacks. Antifa and Black Lives Matter, both left-wing groups that hate America, were front and center. It is likely that local street gangs composed of fatherless young men who despise law enforcement were also involved.

But questions abound. Were these organized efforts funded? If so, by whom? Were some of these violent agitators paid? Were they given a list of targets to burn, loot, and destroy? I wonder where all those criminals they let out of prison early are right now? If I were a betting man, I’d wager that some were looting, vandalizing, and setting fires.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to President Trump, Vice President Pence, and our federal lawmakers asking that the DOJ begin a criminal investigation to identify and prosecute the domestic enemies behind these organized efforts to destroy our cities. The FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, and the U.S. Attorney’s office must use their resources to get to the bottom of this.

Condemning Injustice

Left-wing political operatives want to make the murder of George Floyd and victims like him solely about race. That is a superficial reading of the problem, as it goes much deeper than that. It is an issue of the human condition. 

Let me be unequivocal: Based on the horrific video clip and autopsy report, we condemn the lethal actions of Derek Chauvin and the inaction of the Minneapolis police officers. There is little doubt that their policing authority was abused and the civil rights of Mr. Floyd fatally quashed.

Additionally, we unambiguously support peaceful protests and political actions that demand justice in this case. Using the political tools we have been given to safeguard God’s gift of self-government is the way to address injustices and grievances. We do not and cannot support violence, vandalism, looting, and arson as it only spreads injustice and disunity. (1 Peter 3:8-14)

A Biblical Perspective

Jeremiah 17:9 teaches us that the “heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it?” This is the human condition, we were born with a sinful nature (Psalm 51:5). 

In Mark 7:1-23, Jesus tells us that from our unregenerate heart

“proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.”

There isn’t one of us that is “good” in and of ourselves (Romans 3:10-12; Psalm 14:1-3; Psalm 53:1-3). Our sinful human nature has separated us from God and has us bound for hell — an eternal separation from God (Romans 6:23; Ezekiel 18:20; James 1:15).

Only through Jesus Christ can we find forgiveness (1 John 1:9), be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20), and be given a new nature (2 Corinthians 5:14-19; Ephesians 4:17-24; Galatians 6:12-16; Colossians 3:1-11).

As our culture drifts further and further away from God, we see an increase in the acceptance and practice of sin. Roman 1:28-32 tells us what to expect:

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful.

Certain operatives want to use the Floyd tragedy for political purposes, to divide our country along racial and ethnic lines. Intersectionality is all the rage. Divide and conquer is not only a ploy of the “progressive” agenda, but a key tactic of the devil.

In Scripture, the Lord tells us repeatedly how important unity is (John 17:23; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:11-13; Colossians 3:13-14; Psalm 133:1; Romans 12:16). It should not surprise us that there is unseen spiritual warfare that is manifesting in the physical realm, seeking to divide us.

In addition, in John 8:44 Jesus warns us that Satan is a murderer, a liar, and a deceiver:

He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

One of Satan’s goals is to divide us. (Matt. 12:25; Mark 3:25; Luke 11:17) Satan wants us to be bitter, ungrateful, angry, discontent, so he lies to us about our condition and God’s goodness. The New York Times‘ 1619 Project is a prime example of this effort to deceive Americans into a sinful attitude. Instead of being grateful to God for every challenge and circumstance (1 Thessalonians 5:18), resentment, bitterness, and suspicion are fostered. Every one of us should be thanking God for the privilege of living in this amazing country at this time in history, where the poorest among have a higher standard of living than royalty did throughout most of history.

Being the Remnant

We no longer live in a culture that has a Christian worldview. The residue of God’s blessings on this nation is wearing thin. We have been living off the cultural capital that came as a result of the faithfulness of previous generations. Nonetheless, we have been called at such a time as this to be ambassadors for His Kingdom (2 Corinthians 5:20).

Faithfulness, no matter the circumstance, is required of us (1 Corinthians 4:2), trusting that He will never leave us or forsake us, trusting that His plan is better than our plan, trusting that He is our strong tower and refuge. We dare not lean on our own understanding.

As this spiritual battle waxes and wanes, our fervent and resolute prayers must intensify. We should redouble our prayers for our family members, our church, our neighbors, our state, and our nation.

Likewise, we need to be wise about how we spend our time, talents, and treasures. Are we investing in temporal goods and goals, or are we working to advance the Kingdom of God, to see His will done on earth as it is in heaven? (Matthew 6:19-20-21)?

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

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

I recently tweeted, “Regardless of the charges against Justice Kavanaugh, this much is absolutely clear. The frenzied attempt to try to keep him out of the U.S. Supreme Court is simply a battle for the ‘right’ to abort babies in the womb. That’s the bottom line.”

Similar sentiments were expressed by Brandon Morse, writing on RedState.com: “The whole reason Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is in the crosshairs of a sexual assault allegation, and a media circus is ensuing, is because the left is 100 percent focused on making sure their ability to abort children and profit from it goes uninterrupted. They can pretend it’s about honor and making sure an attempted rapist doesn’t get a seat on the highest court in the land, but the left cares very little about sexual assault or abuse.”

Is Justice Kavanaugh guilty of an attempted sexual assault 36 years ago? Is his accuser, Prof. Christine Blasey Ford, a credible witness? Those are totally separate questions.

The left’s opposition to Kavanaugh would be no less intense, no less angry, no less pitched had these charges never been raised. The real issue is abortion.

To quote Morse again, “This is about Planned Parenthood’s ability to keep the money wheel flowing for the Democrats. This is about keeping a narrative alive that without abortion, America would fall apart.”

Yes, “Democrats are so desperate to keep abortion alive and well in the United States that they’re willing to paint an innocent man as the worst kind of person so that they can continue killing children without trouble.”

And what would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned? What would happen if “abortion rights” were severely restricted (or entirely removed) from state after state?

All hell would break loose on the streets. Fierce protests would arise. Things would get ugly overnight – and by ugly, I mean very ugly.

A headline from July 12, 2013 on Townhall.com read, “Bricks and Tampons Intended to be Thrown at Pro-Life Lawmakers Confiscated by Police. UPDATE: Jars of Feces Too.”

The accompanying article, written by Katie Pavlich, stated that, “Apparently chanting ‘hail Satan,’ ‘f*ck the church,’ ‘bro-choice’ and holding signs that say ‘hoes before embryos’ just wasn’t enough for pro-abortion protestors in Texas. According to reports on the ground, police have confiscated bricks, tampons, pads and condoms protestors planned to throw at pro-life lawmakers.”

Fast forward to October 17, 2017, and a headline on LifeNews stated, “Topless Feminists Throw Firebombs, Tampons and Feces at a Catholic Church to Protest Abortion.” (This took place in Argentina.)

Are you seeing a pattern?

So, I ask again: What happens if Roe v. Wade gets overturned? What can we expect?

We can expect fury. We can expect feces. We can expect vitriol. We can expect vandalism. We can expect violence.

Watch this short video of Antifa and other leftists stealing and destroying pro-life signs in a Boston park. Then ask yourself: What happens when it’s not just pro-life signs that are the issue? What happens when pro-life laws are the issue? What then?

On May 1 of this year, Matthew Vadum reported that Antifa activists in California “protested a campus speech by Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America.”

As Vadum noted, according to the Orange County Antifa group Refuse Fascism, “Because Hawkins’ group would outlaw abortion, its members are equivalent to ‘Hitler-youth’ who want to treat women as ‘mere breeders or incubators, subordinate and shackled to a patriarchal order that sees them merely as objects.’ Pro-lifers are about ‘control over women, not saving lives (as evidenced by their bombings of clinics and outright murder of heroic doctors who provide abortions).’

Indeed, “Hawkins ‘and the whole fascist program against women and their rights’ need to be opposed and the ‘entire culture on campuses needs to be shaken up’ so students take on ‘the grave threat being posed by the Trump/Pence fascist regime.’”

You can be assured that these radical activists believe every word of this rhetoric, which could easily lead to violence. And I repeat: This kind of rhetoric is being used while Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land. Antifa activists and their ilk would go absolutely berserk if the laws were dramatically changed.

To be clear, I recognize that for many women, having an abortion is an intensely difficult moral choice. I’m thinking of a woman in her 20s, reared in a religious home, already raising two little children without a father. Her boyfriend takes advantage of her, she discovers she’s pregnant, and she is devastated by the news.

She cannot imagine adding one more child to her household, she struggles with depression and fear, finally deciding to abort her baby after four months.

Her decision was still morally wrong. But this woman is unlikely to join the “Shout Your Abortion” movement or, even less, to hurl feces at a church building.

Put another way, most of the women (and men) raging for the “right” to abort babies do so ideologically. Among them are devout feminists (although the pioneer feminists were reportedly anti-abortion). Among them are a large percentage of atheists. (According to a recent Pew Research report, 87 percent of atheists feel that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.)

Among them are LGBT activists, like those featured in this story describing, “How Queer Women and Nonbinary People Led the Fight to Secure Abortion Rights in Ireland.” (According to the congratulatory article, there is a clear “connection between LGBTQ+ rights and reproductive rights.”)

Among them are Satanists, like those who led a battle for “abortion rights” in Missouri. Yes, these Satanists claimed that the “rules in Missouri’s strict abortion law violate their religious beliefs.”

This is quite the coalition.

The bottom line is that, these examples, which provide just a sampling of the ideological opposition to the pro-life movement, remind us that hell hath no fury like that of the militant pro-abortionists.

Get ready.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com.