If one State Senator has his way, Illinois will become a center for gender affirmation care for children—which is just a euphemism for chemical castration and surgical mutilation. Mike Simmons (D-Chicago) recently introduced SB 1283 which is to be known as the “Gender-Affirming Health Care Protection Act.” He introduced the bill as a response to several states outlawing puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and cosmetic surgery for children who think that they want to transition to the opposite gender of their birth.

The bill immunizes “any person for providing, aiding, assisting, receiving, or otherwise allowing a child to receive gender-affirming care or referring a child for such care. . .” In other words if someone from another states helps a child to come to Illinois for transgender treatment, Illinois will not help the other state prosecute the person under that state’s laws. Illinois law enforcement and others are prohibited from providing information, warrants will not be recognized, civil penalties are to be ignored, extradition is prohibited, civil or criminal subpoenas for testimony or records will not be recognized or enforced.

In our Constitutional system, I don’t know how this law would be legal, but that is for someone else to figure out. The much larger issue is how woke Springfield has become.

The bill says the General Assembly finds “[g]ender-affirming care encompasses many forms of health care support that improve the mental health and overall well-being of gender diverse children and adolescents and has been shown to increase positive outcomes for transgender and nonbinary children and adolescents.” Claiming that these treatments are for the health of the child is nonsense. There is no empirical evidence to support that claim.

Even after hormone treatments and surgery, the transgender patient remains at high risk for suicide, drug and alcohol addiction, as well as mental health issues associated with gender dysphoria. These cannot be ignored. There also are the lifelong medical treatments to maintain the transgender status and to treat the side effects of all the surgery and hormones alien to their natural born sex. Even Marci Bowers, the doctor who performed the surgery on Jazz Jennings and on at least 2,000 others, reportedly has had second thoughts on performing the surgery on children. There is not enough “material,” meaning the genitalia are too under developed to obtain the best surgical result, according to Bowers.

There is a growing consensus, based on a growing body of empirical evidence, that talk therapy is the preferred treatment, at least until the underlying mental illnesses are relieved.  This is especially true for treatment of children. Also the number of detransitioners is increasing.

The detrans group on Reddit has increased from 38,700 in September, 2022 to 44,200 members this month. These are only the numbers on Reddit. Think of what that means. At least forty-four thousand people have realized they made a mistake. This is a staggering number of mistakes! How many people are transitioning? And what is the real number of detransitioners? We don’t know. Do our legislators know? Do they care?

A recent whistleblower from a hospital in St. Louis has given us some clear insight into gender clinic practices. Jamie Reed, a self-described queer woman who is politically to the left of Bernie Sanders, worked at the Washington University School of Medicine Division of Infectious Diseases for almost four years. The target group for her unit was HIV positive teens and young adults, some of whom were trans. Because of her experience with that patient population, in 2018 she took a position “as a case manager at the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital.” That clinic opened in 2017.

After working at the gender clinic for four years and managing the cases of approximately 1,000 youths, Reid

“left the clinic in November of last year because [she] could no longer participate in what was happening there. By the time [she]  departed, [she] was certain that the way the American medical system is treating these patients is the opposite of the promise we make to ‘do no harm.’ Instead, we are permanently harming the vulnerable patients in our care.”

According to Reid, her conscience would not allow her to continue in her position. The clinic, she said, lacked formal protocols. More troubling to Reid was the changing demographic of the patients. Historically there were more boys who sought to become girls, than there were girls who wanted to be boys. But that started to change.

Reid handled intakes for new patients and families. “When [she] started there were probably 10 such calls a month. When [she] left there were 50, and about 70 percent of the new patients were girls. Sometimes clusters of girls arrived from the same high school,” Reid said.

Reid was concerned about all 0f the additional issues the youths presented as well, like ADHD, autism, depression,  anxiety, and OCD among other problems. Her bosses at the clinic were not concerned with these issues. All the clinic cared about was getting a letter from a therapist that supported transitioning. The clinic would recommend the therapist and even gave a template to the therapist which detailed what the letter of support should say. Remember, Reid is a member of the LGBT community. Moreover, she is married to a transman, yet she has taken a stand against what is being done to our youth. She was not just indicting the St. Louis clinic. Her criticism was directed at clinics throughout the U.S.

Because of Reid’s disclosures, the Washington University transgender clinic is now under civil and criminal investigation by the Missouri Attorney General as well as other agencies.

So far there have been no whistleblowers for clinics in Illinois. Nor for many other clinics in the U.S. Still, there have been enough similar kinds of disclosures to take action. We should take these warnings to heart and pause this rush to embrace child and adolescent transitions.

Are there reasonable protocols in Illinois transgender clinics? What are they? Are they publicly available? Are our clinics ignoring or inadequately addressing the comorbidities of those suffering from gender dysphoria? Are doctors performing surgeries on autistic patients?

How are the clinics insuring that children and their parents are being adequately and meaningfully informed? Are chemical and surgical intervention the best, least destructive, course of treatment? Are the patients and parents informed that any chemical or surgical treatment causes permanent damage? Are they informed that these treatments will not eliminate the high risk of suicide?

How many transgender surgeries are being performed? What does the clinic do when a patient seeks to detransition? What oversight does the government regularly perform?

If our legislators cannot fully answer all of these questions, they need to find out. In the meantime, Senator Simmons should withdraw his bill.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state senator to ask him/her to please oppose SB 1283.

You can also contact State Senator Simmons to ask him to table his irresponsible and harmful bill by call his district office directly. That number is (773) 769-1717.

Read more: 

Most support banning transgender surgery in children (Sharyl Attkisson)

You know you’re living in the dark, deceitful, and depraved Upside Down when a U.S. Senator—a woman no less—says what inveterate liar Elizabeth Warren recently said:

Crisis pregnancy centers … are there to fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination help. … We need to shut them down here in Massachusetts, and we need to shut them down all around the country. You should not be able to torture a pregnant person like that.

Nope, crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) do not “exist to fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination help.” Crisis pregnancy centers exist to help women who believe the only one way to deal with a crisis pregnancy is to terminate the life of their child. Crisis pregnancy centers exist to shine light into the shadowy, deceptive “reproductive health services” propaganda leftists like Warren spew.

CPCs offer ultrasounds in order to provide women with objective, conclusive proof that a human is growing inside them—not a nothing as the left deceitfully suggests. Crisis pregnancy centers offer resources like diapers, maternity clothes, and parenting classes to help young mothers and fathers feel less overwhelmed.

It’s ironic that Warren—the fake Native American—would bring up fooling people. It’s doubly ironic that the fake Native American would bring up “fooling people” in the context of abortion.

The human slaughter lobby has made an art of trying to fool people. They used to call the human fetus “a blob of tissue” and a “clump of cells.” Well, to be fair, I suppose all humans at any stage of development, born or soon-to-be-born, could be deemed blobs of tissue or clumps of cells, but we human blobs and clumps are special kinds of blobs and clumps. And when each of us was in our mother’s wombs, we were blobs and clumps composed of rapidly dividing and differentiating cells with a complex design.

When the blobs and clumps tomfoolery was exposed and became unsustainable, the Warrens of the world began referring to human fetuses as tumor-analogues and parasites. Then leftists admitted that fetuses growing in women’s bodies are human, but they’re not—in the view of leftists—persons.

Deceivers like Warren are trying to fool people into believing that some people who become pregnant are not women, hence Warren’s deceitful term “pregnant person.” All pregnant persons are women. So committed to deception is Warren that she won’t admit that a human in a woman’s womb is a person but will pretend that some men are pregnant “persons.”

Warren tries to fool people when she refers to “pregnancy termination.” That, obviously, is a euphemism, for human termination—the leftist final solution to a crisis pregnancy.

Of Warren’s many grotesque deceptions, perhaps the worst is describing what takes place in a CPC as torturing pregnant persons. While Warren supports, celebrates, and promotes procedures that dismember the bodies and crush the skulls of tiny, innocent humans in their mothers’ wombs, she calls efforts to persuade mothers not to do this “torture.”

The social justice warrior and human rights activist Warren does what all cultural regressives do when faced with speech they hate: She has called for the cancellation of all CPCs in the entire country.

Not yet able to shut down all CPCs, ironist Warren and some U.S. Senate collaborators (Bob Menendez, Mazie Hirono, Brian Schatz, Cory Booker, Tina Smith, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Patty Murray, Jeff Merkley, Richard Blumenthal, Diane Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Kirsten Gillibrand, Ed Markey, and Mark Warner) have an interim plan. They have sponsored a bill to punish CPCs.

One of the ironic reasons they offer for the bill is that “CPCs target under-resourced neighborhoods and communities of color, including Black, Latino, Indigenous, Asian American, Pacific Islander, and immigrant communities.” The bill doesn’t, however, mention the reason CPCs are located in those neighborhoods. They are located there because Planned Parenthood clinics—founded by racist, eugenicist Margaret Sanger—has long targeted impoverished communities of color.

The bill, titled the “Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act” (SAD Act) would “direct the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe rules prohibiting disinformation in the advertising of abortion services.”

The bill accuses CPCs of “routinely … disseminating inaccurate, misleading, and stigmatizing information about the risks of abortion and contraception, and using illegitimate or false citations to imply that deceptive claims are supported by legitimate medical sources.”

Maybe while they’re at it, the FTC could require abortion clinics to advertise that they routinely kill humans.

Elsewhere in the bill, Warren and her fellow abortion cheerleaders refer to the purported use of “misleading statements” by CPCs. Non-profit CPCs that are found to include “misleading” information—as defined by leftists—will be fined up to $100,000 or “50 percent of the revenues earned by the ultimate parent entity” of the non-profit charity.

Warren and her collaborators are trying to transform the FTC into their much longed-for Ministry of Truth/Disinformation Board.

While Warren blathers on about “reproductive rights,” she says nothing about the right of humans in the womb merely to exist. After all, no woman has to raise a child she finds inconvenient or burdensome, or a child who interferes with a mother’s plans for living an authentic life, or a child whose life the mother believes is unworthy of life.

In the conflict between a woman’s “reproductive rights” and a living human’s right to continued existence, it should be obvious that the right to exist is a right of a higher moral order. In fact, it’s the right upon which all other rights depend.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative and Illinois’ U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to vote against S. 4469, the SAD Act. Pro-life crisis pregnancy centers help women through stressful, emotional trials. They not only provide free spiritual/emotional/health care for women, but food, clothes and whatever help is needed. Some CPCs help women find jobs, child care, provide living arrangements and vehicles. They do that so that women don’t feel forced by circumstances or abortion cheerleaders to abort a baby.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/SEN-Warren-Wants-to-Ban-All-Crisis-Pregnancy-Centers.mp3

Illinois prisoners should have the right to vote, a powerful lobbying group is arguing to the Illinois General Assembly. The effort nearly progressed in late January 2022, when the measure failed in the Illinois House by three votes.

If made law, SB 828 would make Illinois the third state to allow incarcerated citizens to vote while they’re in prison – after Maine and Vermont, and the District of Columbia.

Current Illinois voter law must be changed because it is racially unfair, the advocates say. Their proposed changes would add about 28,000 prisoners to Illinois’ voter rolls. Most importantly, nearly 55 percent, Illinois Department of Corrections’ records as of December 2021 show, are African-American:

Statewide population demographics would make Illinois the first state with a substantial percentage of black residents that allows felons the right to vote while they are serving their prison sentences.

It’s not a new movement. It’s just one that has been gaining steam in the past few years.

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont wrote in a 2019 USA Today op ed that allowing prison voting would begin correcting America’s broken criminal justice system he deemed as “systemically racist,” which enables “mass incarceration” as a “tool of voter suppression.”

But how appropriate is it for criminals to maintain the right to vote while they are in prison?

“Nearly every state recognizes the wisdom of preventing prisoners from voting,” former Heritage Foundation legal analyst Jason Snead wrote in a 2019 Chicago Tribune opinion on the issue. “There is simply no reason that those who have shown they cannot follow the law ought to have a say in crafting it or electing those who will enforce it.”

Snead wrote that felons show through their actions that they do not deserve society’s implicit trust.

“They do deserve a second chance, but the burden is theirs to demonstrate that they have become law-abiding and upstanding citizens in other words, the very people we want to be voting,” he said.

Illinois’ Department of Corrections records indicate the top ten crimes current state prisoners have committed range from homicide to robbery:

How comfortable should Illinoisans be to welcome imprisoned murderers, rapists, violent attackers, thieves and drug violators as making the crucial votes to determine who serves in the Executive Branch, in the Illinois General Assembly and on the state’s judicial benches?

Currently, Illinois is one of 21 states that returns voting rights to prisoners once they’ve completed their sentences. That is a liberal stand compared to sixteen states that restore voting rights only after prison, parole and probation are completed and another nine states that permanently deny voting rights to convicted felons.

Illinois, a state politically-controlled in all three branches by Bernie Sanders’ sympathizers, is the perfect place to stoke the voting rights’ fire, Chicago Votes representatives said in a recent WBEZ radio interview.

Lawmakers in general are interested in voting rights’ restoration, the representatives said.  They are much more open to the movement in Illinois than other states.

It matters who casts votes in Illinois. The state’s election rolls are in dire need of being scoured of former residents and deceased voters. Adding criminals still serving their time would not make Illinois a better place for law-abiding citizens to live and raise their families.

Share your thoughts with your state lawmakers as they most certainly will face another vote on SB 828 during the ongoing legislative session.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your State Senator and State Representative to ask them to vote NO to SB 828. The majority of voters in Illinois do not want violent prisoners casting ballots for candidates who are running for the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government.

If you don’t get involved on this issue, your voice and vote could be muffled by an imprisoned murderer.

An assault has occurred on parental rights within the public school system. Parents have voiced their concerns across the nation about everything from perverted curriculum to forced masking. If any good came from the pandemic, it is that parents have seen what public schools are doing behind closed doors. This revelation should lead parents to remove their children from the grip of the government-run education system.

Here are my top ten reasons to leave public schools:

The Marxist Agenda:

Many parents and grandparents were in school during the Cold War, or just following it, and view Communism as the enemy. However, universities hid a dark secret: Marxist philosophers, economists, and educators were devoted to continuing to teach the theory to the next generation. As the Marxist agenda became more elevated on college campuses in the 1980s and 90s, we were unconcerned. After all, this action only involved a handful of academic elites, right? Wrong. Today the consequences of ignoring the indoctrination of university students are readily apparent in our public schools. Those university elites educated the current teachers, curriculum developers, and administrators that now teach in your child’s school. The ideas of hatred towards capitalism, American exceptionalism, and devotion to humanism have slowly infiltrated public schools, starting with high schools and are moving towards younger students. Now, even kindergarten classes are taught Marxist ideologies.

Critical Race Theory:

CRT is in direct relation to the Marxist theory. As a result, CRT, which started in universities, is now spreading like wildfire across public school systems. Schools across the nation are telling teachers to divide their students by race. Instead of finding common ground and cooperative ways of interaction, students are divided and labeled according to race and ethnicity.

LGBT Agenda:

The LGBT lobby and organizations have forced their agenda into every facet of life, including schools. Girls’ sports are being decimated by male athletes masquerading as females, and neither girls nor boys can assume privacy in their respective bathrooms or locker rooms. Teachers are asking students to “choose” their sexuality and pronoun identifiers. Children are allowed to change their name and gender on school records without parental permission. Schools across the country are forming clubs like the Gay-Straight Alliance, yet denying official status to Bible clubs. The agenda has taken over the public schools to such a degree that parents cannot question the schools’ policies. (Illinois lawmakers passed legislation in 2019 to mandate the teaching of LGBT history in classrooms K-12th grade.)

Explicit Sexual Education:

The LGBT agenda has given birth to explicit sex education programs. In previous generations, kindergarteners were taught about proper touch and “stranger danger.” Now, school programs are teaching about masturbation and sodomy, and even grooming children for pedophilia. The new, approved curriculum in Illinois is entirely lewd. This curriculum includes cartoon-drawn images of acts of hetero and homosexual acts. Children are encouraged to participate in masturbation. Although the Department of Education claims parents can opt-out of the classes, parents will not be able to stop their children’s classmates from sharing the curriculum’s text and pornographic images. (Illinois lawmakers passed legislation earlier this year to require all public schools—including charter schools—to align teaching in grades K-5 on “personal health and safety” with “National Sex Education Standards.)”

Declining Academics:

It should not come as a surprise that academics are declining. As educators push their agendas, there is little time to teach mathematics or reading. In the last year, Illinois raised funding per student to $14,492, one of the highest per-student budgets in the nation. Yet, Illinois students are not succeeding academically. In Illinois and across the country, students are falling behind. The US ranks 38th in the world in math and, according to a recent study by Gallup, deficiencies in reading cost trillions of dollars. Many business owners state that they cannot find entry-level employees with basic skills such as money counting, phone etiquette, or even basic reading abilities. Declining academic achievement is devastating our children and our economy. (Click HERE to view the proficiency scores of the largest school districts in Illinois.)

Lack of Transparency:

The local school board and the state have actively limited transparency. They often refuse to show how funding is being distributed and deny parental involvement in the decision-making process. In January of 2021, the Williamson County Circuit Court ordered the Illinois school board of Herrin District #4 to repay $2.7 million in misused tax funds. The school was taken to court by one taxpayer who noted the misappropriations. Parents could prevent fraud and misappropriations if school boards would issue regular reports on the distribution of funds. Schools also lack transparency regarding the curricula they choose. A group of Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin are circulating a bill requiring schools and teachers to publish a list of materials and all curricula utilized by the school. If approved, schools failing to publish these lists will incur a $15,000 penalty. Transparency of materials and texts is an excellent idea; however, the Department of Education and teacher unions are fighting this bill and any attempt to require transparency.

Impediment of Parental Involvement and Rights:

The governmental system does not respect parents or their rights. During the pandemic, parents discovered the nature of curricula and were outraged at the indoctrination occurring in schools. As a result, parents and grandparents are attending school board meetings in large numbers. Parents have expressed concerns ranging from requests to remove CRT and Marxist curricula to concerns about forced masking. These parents are vocal but have been peaceful, with a few rare exceptions. Even though parents have a right to voice concerns about their children’s education, the local boards and teachers have been defiant. Often school boards have refused to answer questions. Have these board members forgotten that they are elected officials? Regardless, parents have been vilified, doxxed, and faced cancel culture for simply wanting to protect their children. Recent Virginia gubernatorial candidate, Terry McAuliffe (D), stated, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” This statement is a shared opinion held by teachers, unions, and board members across the nation.

Authorization of Greater Federal Control:

A memo from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) was sent to the Biden administration claiming that parents attending school board meetings were a threat to teachers and board members. As a result, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to investigate parents attending school board meetings as domestic terrorists. The federal government’s defamation of parents’ character is just the beginning of bringing the federal government into a more significant role in education. If the elimination of parental control in education occurs, then the states and the federal government can indoctrinate children without interference. Federalization can occur not only through the removal of parental influence, but also through financial control. Politicians such as U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) have long called for the federalization of funding. Complete federalization creates an oversight nightmare. This type of system would likely eliminate all local control within the schools.

Removal of God and Country:

The landmark decision of Engel v. Vitale (1962) removed school-mandated prayer from the classroom. It did not end there. Students have had a constant fight to keep student-led, voluntary prayer and Christian clubs in schools. However, we should be clear that the Left intends this ban to only include prayer to the God of the Bible. At the beginning of the school year, parents in California filed suit after the California State Board of Education unanimously approved a curriculum that included chanting to Aztec gods. These are the same false gods that the people of ancient Mesoamerica worshipped through the practice of human sacrifice. Schools have also removed anything that might resemble patriotism. One teacher, who has now been dismissed, removed the American flag and replaced it with the gay pride flag. Although this teacher was fired, many teachers across the nation are denouncing both God and our country in their classrooms.

Your Children Deserve Better:

The best reason to remove your children from the failing public school system is that they deserve better. The current system is rooted in hatred and indoctrination. Twenty years ago, Christian parents sent their children into the public system to be young evangelists. Today any possibility of that is squelched before the child even leaves the primary grades. Before they reach middle school, they will have already seen lewd images and been given ample opportunity to denounce all values their parents instill. Protecting our children means finding alternatives to public school that will support parental rights and values. We must develop our own systems that uphold Christian values. Whether it is home education, private schools, or church co-ops, now is the time to determine what option works best for your family and remove your children from the tyranny of government-run schools.

When humanist John Dewey and his disciples took over the emerging government-education system created decades earlier to advance collectivism, the fledgling system was still in its infancy.

By the time he died in 1952, though, it was a well-oiled collectivist machine that would obliterate America’s religious, intellectual, and political heritage more effectively than any force previously imaginable.

Dewey is often lauded as the founding father of the “progressive” education that now has more than 85 percent of American children in its grip. Although he wasn’t alone—he stood on the shoulders of fellow collectivists Robert Owen and Horace Mann—Dewey certainly deserves much of the credit, or blame, for unleashing it on the United States and humanity.

Like Mann and Owen before him, Dewey had ulterior motives when he dedicated himself with missionary zeal to the cause of “education reform.” Fortunately for future generations and historians, he was a prolific writer who cranked out a seemingly never-ending stream of essays, papers, manifestos, and articles. His views and objectives, then, are hardly a mystery.

Dewey wanted to fundamentally transform the United States. He wanted it to look more like the Soviet Union, in fact. To do that, he believed a total transformation of education and society was required—literally “changing the conception of what constitutes education,” as he wrote in “The Relation of Theory to Practice in Education” in 1904.

Education must bring about a “new social order,” he argued.

As was the case with virtually all of the key figures involved in the government takeover of education, Dewey rejected Christianity and even the very existence of God. More on his religion later. He also rejected the individualism and liberty that defined America up to that point, with its strong protections for God-given rights, private property, and free markets.

Instead, Dewey worked fiendishly to continue the severing of American and Western education’s Christian roots. The process was launched by Owen, the Welsh communist whose commune in Indiana failed. It formally took root under Mann in Massachusetts, when he imported the Owen-inspired Prussian model of education. But that was all to be just the beginning.

By the time Dewey and his disciples worked their magic, the scheme would culminate in a nation in which the overwhelming majority of high-school seniors violently reject the biblical worldview, and in which most young people describe themselves as socialist.

On top of that, the system would produce a nation in which less than a third of those same seniors would even be considered “proficient” in reading and math, according to federal data gathered from the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Replacing Freedom With Collectivism via Education

Interestingly, Dewey was from Burlington, Vermont—socialist Bernie Sanders’s stomping grounds. And like Sanders, Dewey styled himself a “democratic” socialist. But many decades before Sanders visited the Soviet Union on his honeymoon while it was slaughtering and torturing dissidents, Dewey made a pilgrimage to Moscow under Bolshevik rule.

Of course, Karl Marx called for government control of education in “The Communist Manifesto,” and so the Soviets complied. Decades earlier, Owen, another communist, did the same. Dewey picked up where they left off, fervently advocating total control of all education by the state with even more passion than Sanders does today.

Writing in the far-left magazine New Republic, Dewey provided glowing reports about the communist system being imposed upon the people of the Soviet Union. He was especially pleased with its so-called education system, celebrating the way it was instilling a “collectivistic mentality” in Soviet children in his “Impressions of Soviet Russia and the Revolutionary World” published in 1929.

Despite his fondness for Soviet totalitarianism and the communist “ideology” behind it, Dewey would publicly criticize Stalin and Stalinism later in life. His model for a communist United States, by contrast, was outlined in Edward Bellamy’s 1888 book “Looking Backward,” a fantasy about a wonderful collectivist America in the year 2000 where all private property would be nationalized by government.

Dewey’s socialist views were hardly a secret. In “Liberalism and Social Action,” he wrote that the “only form of enduring social organization that is now possible is one in which the new forces of productivity are cooperatively controlled.” “Organized social planning,” he continued in his well-known 1935 work, “is now the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”

In common with virtually all the totalitarians of the 20th century, Dewey understood that the education of children would be fundamental to achieving his Utopian vision of collectivism. “Education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness,” he claimed. “The adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction.”

Out With 3 Rs, in With Collectivism

In his important 1898 essay “The Primary Education Fetich [sic],” Dewey argued strongly against the then-heavy emphasis on reading, writing, and arithmetic in the younger years. It produced highly literate, independent-minded individualists with faith in God and freedom. That was not conducive to a collectivist Utopia, obviously.

Instead, Dewey thought the main focus of education during those precious early years should be socialization and emphasizing collectivism. In particular, the reformer wanted to ditch reading and writing in the primary grades to concentrate on giving children “the habits of thought and action” that he believed were “required for effective participation in community life.”

An astute operator, Dewey recognized that the liberty-minded and overwhelmingly Christian teachers, taxpayers, and parents of America of that era would never knowingly support his radical educational and political ambitions if they understood them. “Change must come gradually,” he explained in that same essay. “To force it unduly would compromise its final success by favoring a violent reaction.”

So instead of going to the American people, Dewey went to the Rockefeller oil dynasty, which was giving away unfathomable amounts of money for “educational reform” through the “General Education Board.” The “philanthropic” outfit gave Dewey millions of dollars to create an experimental school to try out his ideas—a school that successfully cranked out reading-disabled collectivists.

In his crucial 1916 work “Democracy and Education,” Dewey argued that the education regime he envisioned would be “the process through which the needed transformation may be accomplished.” And so, he set about taking control of the education system.

Having failed as a primary- and secondary-school educator, Dewey’s effort to seize control of the school system began with a leadership position in education at the Rockefeller-funded University of Chicago. Later, he went to Columbia University’s Teachers College.

From his ivory-tower perch, Dewey would train up legions of teachers and disciples to unleash on an unsuspecting United States and carry forward his vision. It worked. Dewey became the founding father of America’s “progressive” public education system, and his ideology went mainstream.

Another Dewey “achievement” while in academia was resurrecting quack methods for teaching reading that had been discredited in the 1840s under Mann in Boston. That incredible saga—the root cause of America’s current illiteracy crisis—will be the subject of a future piece in this series.

Perhaps even more important and far-reaching than being able to advance his views on education and politics was Dewey’s influence on the religious views of Americans. Dewey was a self-proclaimed humanist, with his public declarations on religion fusing atheism with socialism and communism. His success on this front is unquestionable and will be the subject of an upcoming piece in this series as well.

In fairness to Dewey, Owen, Mann, and the lesser-known characters behind the government takeover of education, they didn’t have the 20th century in the rearview mirror. It might be said, in their defense, that they did not know the ideology of collectivism, when implemented, would lead to the untimely deaths and mass slaughter of hundreds of millions of people. Now, we should know better.

This article was originally published by The Epoch Times, and is one report in a series of articles examining the origins of government education in the United States.

The 2020 post-election plot thickened on Sunday when Trump legal team attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis announced that Sidney Powell was not a member of the Trump legal team. Naturally, questions and theories about the reason for the separation flooded social media full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.

It is hoped that within a few weeks, we will learn much more about the nature and degree of voter “irregularities” and electronic malfeasance, which in an ideal political world would be a bipartisan issue.

In the past Democrat U.S. Senators Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tammy Duckworth, Ron Wyden, Richard Blumenthal, Edward Markey, Tammy Baldwin, Sherrod Brown, Michael Bennett, and Patty Murray were deeply concerned about the danger posed to election integrity via computer hacking. Ron Wyden sponsored a bill that was co-sponsored by those Democrats that would require,

election bodies to conduct audits of all federal elections, regardless of how close the election, by employing statistically rigorous “risk-limiting audits.”

There are currently no mandatory standards for election cybersecurity, which has resulted in some states operating election infrastructure that is needlessly vulnerable to hacking. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) sets voluntary standards for voting machines, but states can and do ignore these standards. There are no standards at all for voter registration websites or other parts of our election infrastructure.

Can’t we all agree that our voting systems must be fixed before the 2022 midterm elections?

Wyden’s words echo the words of a mysterious Dominion Voting Systems security expert who seems to be missing. Just days before representatives from Dominion Voting Systems abruptly cancelled last Friday’s scheduled appearance before a Pennsylvania House Government Oversight Committee hearing, the name of their Director of Product Strategy and Security, Eric Coomer, began popping up on the Internet. Before being hired by Dominion, Coomer was the Chief Software Architect at Sequoia Voting Systems, he has his Ph.D. in nuclear physics, he loves Antifa, and he detests President Trump (just wondering, are Antifa ruffians Antiffians)?

Since he is an expert in cyber security who works at Dominion and has a dozen patents and pending patent applications pertaining to voting systems, Coomer may be someone lawmakers and reporters should talk to about voting integrity in this recent and future elections. Dominion Voting Systems website and social media, however, seem to have been scrubbed of a lot of information by and about Coomer, so finding him may prove challenging. Maybe Mando the Mandalorian can find him.

As I’ve said before, I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of a conspiracy theory group. For that reason, I’ve ricocheted between wondering if Trump’s legal team and/or Sidney Powell has the goods to prove the diverse about election integrity that have been alleged and the sense that there are sufficient reasons for concern to justify the pursuit of all legal challenges.

Watergate was unthinkable until it wasn’t.

The decades-long secret government UFO program, now called the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force, was unthinkable until it wasn’t. Gaslighting by the government about that was intense and sustained.

Corrupt collusion between the Democrat Party, the FBI, the CIA, and mainstream press outlets to manufacture and propagate a hoax in order to impeach a duly-elected president would have once been deemed the fever dream of tinfoil-wearing conspiracy theorists. And now we know that not only did it happen but also that the colluders then engaged in a widespread, massive campaign to gaslight all of America into believing this widespread massive coup attempt didn’t happen.

The powerful and the uber-cool that strut among us are trying to prevent a full investigation into possible vote-tampering by mocking and intimidating those who say, “Wait just a doggone minute, bub. Let’s take a peek behind the papered-over windows and inside all those Bozoputers.”

Coomer may be a familiar name to some Illinoisans. On September 1, 2016, Sharon Meroni writing for Defend the Vote summarized the now-underground Eric Coomer’s appearance before an Illinois State Board of Elections (ISBE) meeting:

On Friday, August 26^th, during a meeting at the Illinois State Board of Elections, the Vice President of Engineering for Dominion Voting, Dr. Eric Coomer, was asked if it was possible to bypass election systems software and go directly to the data tables that manage systems running elections in Illinois. His response was, “Yes, if they have access.”

Bypassing the election systems software means whoever has access can potentially manipulate the vote without many risks of detection. 

When asked who might have such access, Coomer responded, “‘Vendors, election officials, and others who need to be granted access.’”

Meroni explained what such access means:

Dr. Coomer’s statement is an admission that various vendors, election officials, and others have access to the back end data tables that permit bypassing the operating system’s configuration. It is notable that when someone accesses these systems from a data table, their actions are not logged by the system; thereby making detection much more problematic.

Coomer also shared this troubling information with the ISBE:

We are constantly assessing different threat models against all of our systems we have fielded across the US and internationally as well. Due to the certification environment … we are not allowed to do routine updates without having to go through re-certification efforts, but we do … give guidance on how to best secure systems and … the final mitigation against all of this is a robust auditing canvasing process which all of our jurisdictions have implemented.

According to Meroni,

Dr. Coomer’s statement brings to light a very serious issue all voters should understand. Voting systems must be re-certified each time they make changes to the hardware or software. Recertification is … expensive and time consuming. … What Dr. Coomer told the Board is that Dominion Voting does not go back for recertification of software when threats to their code are discovered. Rather, they rely on post-election audits and providing advice to election jurisdictions about security. …

This is the reality of the security of your vote. Software systems that count and record the vote across Illinois and throughout the USA are not updated to address security problems, and even if they were, the software can be completely bypassed by going to the data tables that drive the systems.

In light of Coomer’s statements, those with the ability to thrash their way through the weeds on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s voluntary voting system certification process, may find these website pages illuminating: Click HERE and HERE.

As Darryl Cooper wrote about the dubious and mysterious Eric Coomer for The American Conservative,

[I]f it was Joe Biden contesting the election results, and the Director for Strategy & Security at a major voting machine provider turned out to be a Proud Boy with decades of involvement in extremist, even violent, right wing political groups. … [Democrats] would ask how such a person ended up in such an important position of public trust.

If everything is on the up and up, why the massive freak-out by leftists (and some Never-Trumpers) over millions of Americans wanting all available legal and constitutional means pursued to ensure the election was fair and honest? Surely, tolerant, inclusive, fair-minded leftists don’t care about cost or inconvenience; they were willing to spend $38 million of taxpayer money on their elaborate ruse to get rid of a man they detest with unhinged intensity.

Maybe, just maybe the deplorables and ugly folks would believe the words of presumed-but-not-elected Joe Biden’s calls for “unity” if his string-pullers would calm down and let all investigations and court proceedings proceed—oh, and maybe get rid of their blacklists.

If you see this man, have your camera at the ready. Ask him some hard-edged questions, like “What kind of milkshakes do you like,” and then run for your life. He may be an Antiffian armed with a black satchel full of Molotov cocktails.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The-2020-Post-Election-Plot-Thickens.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.

One of the more grotesque demonstrations of leftist non-sense and hypocrisy was demonstrated a week ago following an episode of the wildly popular Disney show The Mandalorian when “Baby Yoda” eats the unfertilized eggs of a Frog Woman who is transporting her eggs to her husband so he can fertilize them thereby preventing their species’ imminent extinction. Fans of Baby Yoda freaked out, incensed at the lighthearted treatment of what they deemed genocide by the beloved Baby Yoda.

The moral incoherence and hypocrisy should be obvious. In the Upside Down where leftists live, when a human mother hires someone to dismember her own fertilized human egg—aka human fetus/embryo/baby—they demand that society affirm, celebrate, and shout the execution of those tiny humans. In fact, the voluntary dismemberment of fertilized human eggs at any gestational age is so morally innocuous and such an unmitigated public good that leftists think all Americans should pay for the executions of humans in utero.

In the Upside Down, the genocidal killing of all fertilized human eggs with Down Syndrome is at best morally neutral if not morally good, but the fictional devouring of unfertilized Frog Critters’ eggs is morally repugnant. Just wondering, if fertilized human eggs are parasites so devoid of personhood as to render them morally legitimate objects to kill, if it’s okay to dismember them because they’re imperfect non-persons, would there be anything wrong with eating their remains?

Leftists views on the slaughter of fertilized human eggs is just the most grotesque of their many morally incoherent views. Here are a few more:

• According to leftists, concerns of conservatives about possible 2020 election “irregularities”—including via computer malfeasance and malfunction—are evidence of paranoid conspiracy theories, but when leftists express such concerns, they’re sound, reasonable, and legitimate. In 2019, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden proposed an amendment titled “Protecting American Votes and Elections Act” to the “Help America Vote Act of 2002.” His proposed amendment was signed by 14 co-sponsors—all Democrats—including a who’s who of presidential wannabes: Richard Blumenthal, Edward Markey, Jeff Merkley, Tammy Duckworth, Brian Schatz, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tammy Baldwin, Bernie Sanders, Maria Cantwell, Kamala Harris, Sherrod Brown, Michael Bennet, and Patty Murray. Wyden provided a summary of his amendment that includes the following:

Votes cast with paperless voting machines cannot be subjected to a manual recount, and so there is no way to determine the real election results if they are hacked. H.R. 1 …  mandates paper ballots.

In order to detect hacks, this bill requires election bodies to conduct audits of all federal elections, regardless of how close the election, by employing statistically rigorous “risk-limiting audits.”

There are currently no mandatory standards for election cybersecurity, which has resulted in some states operating election infrastructure that is needlessly vulnerable to hacking. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) sets voluntary standards for voting machines, but states can and do ignore these standards. There are no standards at all for voter registration websites or other parts of our election infrastructure.

• Leftists heartily endorse bodily damage and disfigurement as sound “treatment” protocols for those who experience a mismatch between their internal feelings and their sexual embodiment as male or female, but bodily damage and disfigurement of those who experience a mismatch between their internal feelings and their whole or healthy bodies (i.e., those with Body Integrity Identity Disorder who identify as amputees or paraplegics) are considered barbaric and ethically prohibited.

• Leftists condemn conservatives as “science-deniers” for disagreeing with them on the degree to which climate change is caused by human action or on how to respond to climate change. At the same time, the purported science-worshippers claim that men can menstruate, become pregnant, and “chestfeed,” and they claim that the product of conception between two persons is not a person. Anyone who refuses to concede to such nonsense is mocked, reviled, de-platformed, and fired. Just ask Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling or Wall Street Journal writer and author of Irreversible Damage, Abigail Shrier.

• Leftists claim that marriage has no connection to either sexual differentiation or reproductive potential. They vociferously claim that marriage is solely constituted by love, and that “love is love.” And yet most leftists don’t think two brothers in a consensual loving relationship should be able to legally marry.

• Leftists claim there’s no story behind or within Hunter Biden’s emails and texts that prove Joe Biden straight up lied to the American public, and yet they claimed there was a story of such magnitude and enormity within Christopher Steele’s imaginative “dossier,” that it necessitated 24-hour coverage for years.

• Leftists claim that eliminating the Electoral College and filibuster and packing the U.S. Supreme Court constitute necessary changes to enhance “democracy,” but implementing legal processes to ensure an election was fair undermines democracy.

• Every gathering of leftists, including mostly violent protests, a takeover of six city blocks, trips to hair salons (Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi), a post-election street celebration (Lori Lightfoot), a holiday boating excursion (attempted by husband of Michigan Governor Christine Whitmer), restaurant dining (California Governor Gavin Newsom, CNN narcissist Chris Cuomo), a funeral/Democrat campaign event (i.e., John Lewis’ faux-funeral) are COVID-immune and justifiable. But an Orthodox Jewish funeral, an entirely peaceful protest of draconian COVID restrictions, and a march in support of a transparent and fair election are denounced as super-spreader events.

• Serial killer of senior citizens, Andrew “Quietus” Cuomo, commands citizens to “admit” their “mistakes” and “shortcomings” with regard to how they responded to the Chinese Communist virus even as he refuses to apologize for his policies that killed scores of elderly.

• To leftists, social science is the god that determines all moral truth, and yet despite social science demonstrating repeatedly that children—especially boys—need fathers, the left refuses to discuss how fatherless families may be contributing to the anti-social behavior that is destroying our cities.

• Leftists claim to value free speech, religious liberty, inclusivity, diversity, tolerance, and unity while condemning not just the beliefs of those with whom they disagree, but also the persons themselves. Many leftists share an uncharitable, presumptuous, ugly, tyrannical, oppressive, and scary desire that those who believe homosexual acts are immoral, who believe marriage has an ontology, who believe biological sex is immutable and meaningful, and who believe bodily damage and disfigurement are improper treatment protocols for gender dysphoria should be unable to work anywhere in America.

To create the illusion that they’re not hypocrites and to defend their intolerance, exclusion, divisiveness, hatred of persons, book banning, speech suppression, demand for ideological uniformity, and efforts to circumscribe the  exercise of religion—which for Christians extends far outside the church walls—leftists resort to fallacious reasoning. The fallacies they employ are too numerous to list, but two of their faves are the ad hominem fallacy and the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Ad hominem is an informal fallacy in which an irrelevant personal attack replaces a logical argument. It proves nothing about the soundness, truth, or falsity of a claim. Instead it appeals to emotion and silences debate through intimidation.

The fallacy of circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion presumes the premise (i.e., the initial claim) is true without proving it true. So, for example, leftists–ignoring their purported commitment to the First Amendment–argue that homosexual acts are moral acts and, therefore, there is no need to tolerate the expression of dissenting views. But the intolerance they are trying to defend is based on the truth of their premise that homosexual acts are moral—a premise they simply assume without proving is true.

Here’s another: Leftists assert that marriage is constituted solely by subjective romantic and erotic feelings, and, therefore, the government has no reason not to recognize unions between two people of the same sex as marriages, because such couples can experience love and erotic desire. But the premise—i.e., that marriage is constituted solely by subjective romantic and erotic feelings—hasn’t been proved.

And here’s yet another claim about marriage based on circular reasoning: Leftists argue that the reason government is involved in marriage is to grant public legitimacy or provide “dignity” to erotic/romantic unions and, therefore, the government has an obligation to recognize homoerotic unions as marriages. The problem is that those who make this argument fail to prove their claim that the reason government is involved in marriage is to recognize, provide, or impart “dignity” to unions. Those who make this argument just assume their premise is true.

After employing fallacious circular reasoning and hurling ad hominem epithets at their opponents, leftists sanctimoniously wipe the dust off their dirty hands and assert that their hypocrisy isn’t really hypocrisy after all.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Ideological-Non-Sense-and-Hypocrisy-of-Leftists.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.

Written by James M. Odom, Esq.
Senior Policy Analyst, The Illinois Family Institute

Our founders were so sophisticated in their understanding of religion and civil government, that they secured this critical inalienable right given by the Creator to all mankind, as the very first freedom to be protected by the U.S. Government.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
~John Adams, 2^nd President of the U.S.A.

This is why the Illinois Family Institute has joined a friend of the court (“amicus”) brief supporting Catholic Social Services in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 922 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2019), just argued before the Supreme Court of the United States.

The City of Philadelphia wants same sex relationships to be universally accepted, regardless of religious belief, and has therefore prohibited foster children from being placed with a Catholic organization that has been serving children in this way for 223 years, because their religious practice prevents them from placing children with same-sex couples.  Though, incidentally the organization never actually refused a same-sex placement. They refer them elsewhere.

At the federal level, the courts generally enforce the First Amendment by requiring 1) a compelling government interest, and 2) the least restrictive means narrowly tailored to actually achieve that interest before allowing a government to infringe Constitutional rights. This is referred to as the strict scrutiny test.

While it has generally been accepted since the ratification of the 14^th Amendment that the federal government would also defend rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution against the actions of State and local governments, the U.S. Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), reduced this protection by ruling that government actions not targeted specifically against religion, or those called “generally applicable,” do not prohibit the free exercise of religion.

This has enabled state and local governments to tailor laws to limit the free exercise of religion by simply outlawing religious practices that they dislike, for everyone, rather than just those who are acting based upon their faith. This has resulted in numerous states passing “Religious Freedom Restoration” laws to reinstate the previous level of judicial scrutiny.

Such limitation of religious liberty is exactly what happened in Fulton.

This is also why Illinois churches’ federal lawsuits against being forced to close during the COVID-19 pandemic fell on deaf ears in the federal courts.

With the new Court make-up (already relevant, as it had refused to even hear similar cases prior to the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett), there is a possibility of overturning Employment Division, and reinstating a test which would prevent such government prohibitions of exercising religious faith.

What this case is really all about, is giving government the ability to silence the Church, and thereby God, and the Word of God on issues of right and wrong.

The political left desires to replace the current United States Republican form of government with the political philosophies of Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto (referred to more gently as “socialism” by Democrat politicians such as Bernie Sanders).  Removing the Church’s ability to influence the culture’s understanding of right and wrong is a key element needed to effectively marginalize true religion and make it irrelevant.

This is why Democrats appoint activist judges who will re-write the Constitution to suit their contemporary ideology, and why they now desire to continue that practice by adding more judges to the High Court.

Pray with us that our Creator who holds this Court and this Country in His mighty hand, will guide the Court to protect true religion and His Church, the indispensable foundation of this great Nation!

PLEASE PRAY: Pray for God’s mercy on our nation as we await the results of President Trump’s legal challenges to election results. In 2000, it took 37 days to figure out the “hanging chad” dilemma. We must be patient. In the meantime, please pray that any and all corruption would be exposed. 

Please consider a donation to IFI as we stand boldly in the public square.

Well, they dusted off those colorful “Handmaid’s Tale” outfits that were so visible at Brett Kavanaugh’s U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 2018.

Even before Amy Coney Barrett’s hearing on Monday before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, the Democrats were being cheered on by permanently angry women (and maybe some men) dressed in red cloaks with white duckbills extending from their hoods.

This is the uniform of the oppressed women in Hulu’s serialization of Margaret Atwood’s dystopic, anti-Christian novel. If you thought atheist crusader Philip Pullman’s thinly disguised depiction of church authorities as evil in “The Golden Compass” book and movie were bad, Ms. Atwood runs circles around him.  In her 1985 book and TV series, the polygamous men cite Bible verses and treat the women as sex slaves.

Braving the rain on Monday, the demonstrators held signs festooned with messages such as a giant NO! in rainbow colors over “Trump/Pence Must Go!”

This time around in the U.S. Senate star chamber, the Democrats who pretend to honor religious liberty while assailing nominees’ faith think they have a smoking gun. The word “handmaid.”

Mrs. Barrett and her husband have long been members of an ecumenical charismatic Christian group begun in 1971 called People of Praise, based in South Bend, Indiana, home to Notre Dame University and its law school, from which she graduated summa cum laude and taught constitutional law.

Women leaders in the group, including Mrs. Barrett, previously held the title of “handmaid,” which is derived from Jesus’s mother Mary’s own description of herself in Luke 1:38 as “the handmaid of the Lord.”

The group dropped that title in favor of “women’s leader” because “the meaning of this title has shifted dramatically in our culture in recent years,” a spokesman said.

Mrs. Barrett, 48, now serves on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, to which she was nominated by President Donald J. Trump in 2017.  At that time, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said at a hearing that Mrs. Barrett’s religious beliefs worried her because “the dogma lives loudly within you.”

Wow. Talk about open religious bigotry. But it’s OK because the senator is a Democrat, and they get to do this sort of thing. It’s not as if the media would have a problem with it.

Here’s a front-page headline from last Wednesday’s Washington Post:

Barrett long active with insular Christian group: Community preached subservience for women, former members say.

Ah, those “former members.” You can always dig up a dissident or two to make the point you want, unless you’re reporting on Black Lives Matter or the Democratic National Committee, which are pretty much the same thing.

As for People of Praise, here’s more from their own media statement provided to Heavy.com:

A majority of People of Praise members are Catholic, and yet the People of Praise is not a Catholic group. We aim to be a witness to the unity Jesus desires for all his followers. Our membership includes not only Catholics but Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals and nondenominational Christians. What we share is a common baptism, a commitment to love one another and our teachings, which we hold in common.

Freedom of conscience is a key to our diversity. People of Praise members are always free to follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, experience and the teachings of their churches.

As the Apostle Paul instructs, and many biblically sound churches teach, men are to be the spiritual leaders in the church and in their own households and they are to love their wives as they love themselves. This is considered scandalous by our cultural commissars.

In Ephesians 5:25, Paul writes: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for her.” That means laying down your life if necessary.  It’s why when things go bump in the night, the guy should be the one who goes downstairs with the baseball bat or the Sig Sauer.

Democrats are terrified of the attractive and articulate Mrs. Barrett, a mother of seven, just as they were threatened by Clarence Thomas, who destroyed their narrative that blacks belong on the leftist plantation.

Mrs. Barrett has impeccable credentials that the U.S. Senate already examined when she was nominated for the appeals seat.  At that time, the “handmaid” reference didn’t get traction, since the TV version of “The Handmaid’s Tale” only debuted in April of that year.

In the meantime, we’ve seen U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) take a page from Bernie Sanders and grill Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo in 2018 about sex and marriage, strongly implying that his traditional Christian views are a form of bigotry. Booker likes to make much of his own Christian faith, which apparently is free of the burden of having to abide by crystal clear biblical principles regarding sex.

Also hewing to “smarter than God” theology is Kamala Harris, who has embraced all things LGBTQ, plus taxpayer-funded abortion and Marxist economics. On December 5, 2019, Harris asked Brian Buescher, President Trump’s nominee for district court in Nebraska, “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?” And, “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization?”

During Monday’s hearing, Mrs. Barrett had to face the likes of Booker, Feinstein and Harris, plus the troupe of “Handmaid” harridans.

After the process is over and Associate Justice Barrett is sworn in, the “ladies” can make further use of their costumes.

After all, Halloween is right around the corner.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com. Follow Robert Knight on is a His website is robertHknight.com.

U.S. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Ny), the darling of the new socialist Democrats in this country, recently referred to the three branches of government. She said, they are the White House, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives. John Roberts, call your office.

Ocasio-Cortez is not alone in a great misunderstanding of our history. Many Americans have an abysmal knowledge of our history and some of the basics of American civics.

The results of a recently-released survey (2/15/19) are not encouraging. The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation reports that, “in the highest-performing state, only 53 percent of the people were able to earn a passing grade for U.S. history. People in every other state failed; in the lowest-performing state, only 27 percent were able to pass.” [Emphasis theirs.]

The states that did the best were Vermont, Wyoming, and South Dakota. The states that did the worst were Louisiana, Kentucky, and Arkansas. When I first read that, I thought, “Then, what are those Vermonters doing, voting for U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders again and again?” As the saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

Some examples of the common ignorance of Americans uncovered by the survey:

• 57% did not know that Woodrow Wilson was the Commander in Chief during World War I.

• 85% could not identify the correct year the U.S. Constitution was written (1787).

• 75% could not identify how many amendments have been added to the document (27).

• 25% did not know that freedom of speech was guaranteed under the First Amendment.

The Foundation concluded: “[A] waning knowledge of American history may be one of the greatest educational challenges facing the U.S.”

This survey is consistent with other findings through the years. We have dumbed down our schools.

Our loss of the knowledge of basic history and civics is a tragedy. We suffer from what I call, American Amnesia. I even wrote a whole book about it. God is the source of our freedom, but we forget this to our peril. As John F. Kennedy put it, “[T]he rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”

I once interviewed the late Mel and Norma Gabler of Longview, Texas, who reviewed textbooks, from a Christian and conservative perspective. They told me of a textbook which dedicated seven pages to Marilyn Monroe, but only a paragraph to George Washington—and in that paragraph it mentioned that he had false teeth.

Our young people today know more about the trivia of today’s celebrities than they do the men and women who sacrificed everything to bequeath our freedoms to us.

Karl Marx once said, “Take away a people’s roots, and they can easily be moved.” Dr. Peter Lillback, with whom I had the privilege to write a book on the faith of George Washington, said in his book on church/state relations, Wall of Misconception, “One of our great national dangers is ignorance of America’s profound legacy of freedom. I firmly believe that ignorance is a threat to freedom.”

Lillback compiled the following quotes on the link between education and freedom:

• Thomas Jefferson said, “A nation has never been ignorant and free; that has never been and will never be.”

• James Madison observed, “The diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty….It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.”

• Samuel Adams pointed out the importance “of inculcating in the minds of the youth the fear and love of the Deity and universal philanthropy, and, in subordination to these great principles, the love of their country.” God and charity first, said the Lightning Rod of the American Revolution, country second.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, says the Bible, which was in the first 200 years of America the chief textbook in one way or another. That includes the small but powerful New England Primer, which trained whole generations in Christian theology (in the Calvinist tradition), while teaching them even the basics of reading and writing.

Even their ABC’s were based on Biblical truths. Says the New England Primer: “A, In Adam’s Fall, We Sinned All. B, Thy Life to Mend, the Bible Tend. C, Christ Crucif’ed, For Sinners Died,” and so on.

Back then, with a Bible-based education, literacy was so high that John Adams said that to find an illiterate man in New England was as rare as a comet. It is too bad that as a society we continue to forget God, and we continue to reap the consequences, including the loss of our history and heritage of liberty.

Why does this matter? George Orwell, a former British Marxist, told us why in his classic novel, 1984: “Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

This article was originally published at JerryNewcombe.com

The intellectually incoherent U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) sought to apply an unconstitutional religious test for office today when interrogating nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Neomi Rao. Perhaps hoping everyone listening were idiots, he first attempted an indirect tactic by asking her this irrelevant question, the answer to which is none of his business: “Are gay relationships in your opinion immoral?”

Word to the seriously unwoke Booker: Americans—including judicial nominees and judges—are entitled to think sexual activity between persons of the same sex is immoral.

When Ms. Rao questioned the relevance of his inquiry, the smug Booker responded,

I think it’s relevant to your opinion. Do you think African American relationships are immoral? Do you think gay relationships are immoral?

Seriously, he actually said Rao’s opinion on the morality of homosexual relationships is relevant to her opinion on the morality of homosexual relationships.

But his reasoning—if it can be called that—is worse than circular. His questions imply an analogy between race and homosexuality when there are literally no points of correspondence between the two conditions. Does he understand what an analogy is and what it requires?

Here’s a primer regarding this particular and particularly unsound analogy for the dull-witted “progressives” among us: Race—as understood in such analogies—is a 100% heritable, non-behavioral condition, immutable in all cases, and objective. In contrast, homosexuality is a non-heritable, and in some—perhaps many–cases mutable condition that is constituted by subjective feelings and volitional behaviors that are legitimate objects of moral assessment.

A far better analogue for homosexuality would be polyamory, so, if Booker wants to continue his  moralistic and judgmental line of questioning on irrelevant matters with judicial nominees, he should ask them if they think polyamorous relationships are immoral, to which nominees should respond, “What possible relevance are my beliefs on the morality of particular types of sexual unions?”

Then Booker transmogrified from arbiter of morality to constitutional ignoramus by asking Rao,

Do you believe [“gay” relationships] are a sin?

Whoa, hold up there, cowboy.

The Constitution expressly prohibits religious tests for office, so what the heck was he doing asking Rao for her theological position on homosexual relationships?

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) took Booker to task for his egregious line of questioning:

The Senate Judiciary Committee should not be… an avenue for persecution.

We’ve seen a growing pattern among Senate Democrats of hostility to religious faith…. I was deeply troubled a few minutes ago to hear questioning of a nominee, asking personal views on what is sinful.

In my view that has no business in this committee. Article Six of the Constitution says there should be no religious test for any public office. We have also seen Senate Democrats attack what they have characterized as religious dogma, we’ve seen Senate Democrats attack nominees for their own personal views on salvation.

I don’t believe this is a theological court of inquisition. I think the proper avenue of investigation is a nominee’s record. So let’s look at your record, which is what this committee should be looking at, not our own personal religious views, or your religious views, whatever they may be.

Presidential-hopeful Booker nervously responded to Cruz’s remarks, defending himself with this patently absurd claim:

I would defend—die for—to protect the ideals of religious freedom in our country. And I was in no way trying to attack the nominee’s religious freedom. I was simply saying that discrimination under any standpoints, whether it’s religion, someone’s race, someone’s sexual orientation, should not be tolerated….[R]eligion was used as a ruse to discriminate against African Americans.

For someone who wasn’t trying to attack the nominee’s religious freedom, he did a pretty darn good job of doing just that by framing his question in a way that implied her unfitness to serve on the court. The hubris of Booker’s attempt to reframe his accusatory question about Rao’s moral and theological beliefs is mind-boggling. He would no more die for the right of theologically orthodox Christians to freely exercise their religion than CNN would fact-check anti-Trump news stories.

As Cruz alluded to, Booker’s not alone among U.S. Senate Democrats who engage in open religious discrimination. U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Bernie Sanders (D-VT) Kamala Harris (D-CA), and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) have all revealed their brazen religious bigotry and attempted to apply a religious test for public office during U.S. Senate hearings over the past two years.

During the campaign, someone should ask armchair theologian Booker if he thinks theologically orthodox views of homosexuality are immoral and sinful.

This isn’t Booker’s first religious-test rodeo. Remember the Booker inquisition of Mike Pompeo in which Booker asked Pompeo if he thinks “it’s appropriate for two gay people to marry,” and asked, “Is being gay a perversion,” and asked, “Do you believe gay sex is a perversion? Yes or no.”

Someone should also ask Booker what he thinks should happen in cases where the rights of those whose Christian, Orthodox Jewish, or Muslim beliefs are central to their identity come into conflict with the purported rights of those whose homoerotic desires are central to their identity.

Lesbian Chai Feldblum, until recently a commissioner on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission whose reappointment was thankfully blocked by U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT),  said this about such conflicts long before the Obergefelle decision legalized same-sex faux-marriage:

[L]et us postulate that the entire country is governed – as a matter of federal statutory and constitutional law – on the basis of full equality for LGBT people….

Assume for the moment that these beliefs ultimately translate into the passage of laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation… [G]ranting this justified liberty and equality to gay people will likely put a burden on… religious people….

Let me be very clear…in almost all the situations…I believe the burden on religious people that will be caused by granting gay people full equality will be justified….

That is because I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if “pockets of resistance” to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people….

In blocking Feldblum’s reappointment Lee, said, “Don’t think for a second that you, your family, and your neighbors will be left alone if Feldblum gets her way.” The same can be said about Booker.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Booker-4.mp3

Christian Life in Exile
On February 22^nd, IFI is hosting a special forum with Dr. Erwin Lutzer as he teaches from his latest book, “The Church in Babylon,” answering the question, “How do we live faithfully in a culture that perceives our light as darkness?” This event is free and open to the public, and will be held at Jubilee Church in Medinah, Illinois.

Click HERE for more info…

Bernie Sanders, a socialist and U.S. Senator from Vermont, doesn’t like capitalist economics. Visiting the Pope in 2016, he made some serious accusations.

I told him [the Pope] that I was incredibly appreciative of the incredible role that he is playing in this planet in discussing issues about the need for an economy based on morality, not greed…[i]

Doubling down, Bernie went even farther:

At an economic conference held at the Vatican, Bernie Sanders found occasion to denounce capitalism. “At a time when so few have so much, and so many have so little, we must reject the foundations of this contemporary economy as immoral and unsustainable.”[ii]

Even if we don’t like his politics, suppose that he is right. What if capitalism really is immoral. Shouldn’t Christians then be working to make things right? This article explores capitalism and economic immorality. It aims to:

• Define capitalism, so that we can agree on is being discussed.

• Examine what it means to have morals in an economic system.

• Discover what the Bible has to say about property, economics, and morals.

• Look at the American economy, seeking patterns of economic injustice.

• Give thought on ways to fix patterns of economic injustices.

Capitalism in two minutes

To frame this discussion of capitalism we need a definition. According to one dictionary, capitalism is:

“an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”[iii]

This definition implies:

People are allowed, even encouraged, to own things, tangible and intangible, useful for producing other things. A person always can use his or her own labor, ideas, and creativity. A person may also own the means of production: farms, mines, factories, and warehouses stuffed with useful items. Money stored in bank accounts is also good, for it can be used to acquire the means of production.

An owner gets to choose what happens to his or her property. What a person owns, or can produce, can be sold or gifted to others. It can even be kept idle, producing nothing. All of those choices are good.

Some people will become wealthy, but others won’t. When people have the freedom to apply talent, industriousness, social connections, and “luck” to their endeavors some of them will succeed and others will fail. Importantly, the successful people are allowed to keep their gains.

Capitalism has no built-in morals

The concept of capitalism is simple and short. It basically says that people can own things, and exchange ownership of their things. There is nothing there about morals, nothing prescribing prices, defining contract law, or prohibiting certain activities.

Economic morals come not from theories, but from application of that society’s morals and ethics. For example, a society that prohibits armed robbery will also condemn theft by way of dishonest weights and measures (Proverbs 16:11). Since discussion only of capitalist theory would make for a really short article, we’ll continue by concentrating on the American expression of capitalism.

When a society’s morals change then the marketplace soon reflects the changes. Here is an example from our too-recent past.

• Early in the 19^th century United States law permitted importing slaves from Africa.[iv] A slave buyer from America could go to Africa and purchase slaves from a seller. Buying foreign slaves was socially and economically acceptable for American society, at least in some states. Selling slaves to Americans was acceptable to this African society.

• In 1808 it became socially and legally unacceptable to buy and import slaves into the United States.[v] The practice was outlawed, and ceased, because of our society’s new morals, which were applied to the marketplace. However, African sellers stayed in business, for selling slaves was still acceptable to their society.[vi]

In this example the American and African societies expressed different moralities on the same topic, slavery and slave trading. It shows that you can’t usefully judge a society’s economic morality without also considering its general morality.

What does the Bible have to say about property and capitalism?

The Bible instructs us in righteous living. And unless you’re a hermit farmer, its instructions also cover the economic interactions you have with others. In fact, the Bible has over 2000 verses dealing with money.[vii] What does the Bible have to say about owning property?

God gave Adam and Eve the right to own things. God created everything, and still owns everything (Deuteronomy 10:14; Psalm 24:1; Psalm 50:12; 1 Corinthians 10:26, etc.). He delegated His ownership authority to Adam and Eve, giving them, and their descendants, dominion and the right to rule (Gen 1:28-30).

Mankind practiced capitalism from the very beginning. Cain was a farmer, Abel a shepherd. Each sacrificed to God out of his own provision, not from some community pool (Gen 4:2-5). They individually enjoyed the rights of private property and capitalism. After all, farms and flocks are means of production and thus capital goods.

The New Testament affirms private ownership. When Jesus warns us to store up treasures in heaven, He acknowledges that people can, and do, own treasures here (Matthew 6:19-21). He didn’t tell all of us to abandon them, but rather to use them as tools and not be enslaved to them (Matthew 6:24). The warning “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?” (Mark 8:36) speaks of a common understanding of capitalist principles. To the people of Jesus era, capitalism was likely the only economics they knew.

Early in the Jerusalem church its people pooled their goods for the common good, selling property and land for the needs of the saints (Acts 2:43-45; 4:32-35). Yet communal life wasn’t the norm for Christ’s church. For example, Paul encouraged to the Corinthian church to prepare a gift they promised for the benefit of the Jerusalem church (1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:2, 6-8). If the Corinthians were living communally then Paul could have simply asked the elders about the gift. This means that members of a congregation may choose to act communally, but they aren’t obligated to do so.

It is OK to be wealthy. The Bible has no problem with a person being wealthy. Look at Abraham, who found favor with God (Genesis 12:1-3). He was blessed with enormous wealth (Genesis 13:2), so much so that it took a literal army to properly care for it (Genesis 14:14).

It was also OK to be wealthy even if you weren’t Abraham. When Moses was done leading Israel through the wilderness he lectured them about the kind of land they were to occupy and enjoy.

• They would occupy towns and homes they didn’t have to labor over, and eat from orchards they didn’t have to plant (Deuteronomy 6:10-15).

• They would have an abundance of crops, flocks, and children, along with the health to enjoy it all (Deuteronomy 7:12-16).

• They would have abundant land for farming and shepherding, with minerals to mine, refine, and use in factories. (Deuteronomy 8:6-10).

After being set up so nicely, all that they then had to do was to devote themselves to the Lord. Over time Israel failed to do that and had an up-and-down history.

The New Testament also has wealthy people, even wealthy Christians.

• Jesus challenged a man to give up his wealth. He saw it as a snare to the man’s devotion to God. The problem wasn’t that he was wealthy, but that the wealth was the man’s master. (Luke 18:18-27).

• Philemon had at least one slave, indicating a large, wealthy household. Paul encouraged him to free his slave Onesimus. But he was OK with Philemon’s wealth. If he wasn’t then Paul would have also rebuked him for being rich (Philemon 1:18-20).

• James admonished men going on a business trip. The problem wasn’t their occupation, but that they wouldn’t acknowledge the God who directs their steps (James 4:13-15).

In the Bible we see some people thrive with wealth. It is a blessing to them. Other people get rich and it warps them into selfish oppressors. We see how wealth can corrupt (1 Timothy 6:9-10) and cause the possessor to worship their treasure rather than God who provided it (Luke 16:13).

What does the Bible have to say about the responsibilities of wealth?

Has God blessed you with wealth? Do you get regular meals, a good job, a place to call your own home? Very good. Is God pleased with how you handle your bounty? Or are you only vaguely aware that with wealth comes responsibility (Luke 12:48).

Here are some of the Bible’s charges regarding wealth.

Don’t trust in your wealth. Wealth has its uses, but you can’t eat gold during a famine (Genesis 47:15). What you have saved can be taken from you by thieves or armies. And your wealth won’t help you at all when you die – you can’t take it with you (Luke 12:15-21). You need to look to God to provide for your needs (Luke 12:28; Philippians 4:19).

Don’t use your wealth and position to subvert justice. Those with wealth and influence can influence leaders and judges to achieve more favorable outcomes. The Bible shows this, how David tried evading acknowledging his adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:1-4, 14-17), and how Ahab acquired Naboth’s vineyard by arranging a lynching (1 Kings 21:8-16). Judges are to be upright and honest (Exodus 23:6-7; Isaiah 1:26), not favoring the rich or the poor (Exodus 23:1-3; Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:16-17; Proverbs 18:16), and never open to bribes (Exodus 23:8; Proverbs 17:23).

Have honest business practices. Honesty isn’t just a personal ethic (Exodus 20:15, Proverbs 22:22-23). It also covers how you gain your wealth, and how you run your business.

• Do you delay paying your bills? It gooses your cash flow, but it also cheats your creditors of the payments they need today (Leviticus 19:13; Deuteronomy 24:10-13; Deuteronomy 25:13-15; Jam 5:4).

• Shortchanging your customers is not only dishonest but theft (Leviticus 19:35-36; Deuteronomy 25:13-15; Proverbs 11:1; Proverbs 20:10; Amos 8:4-8).

• You can stretch expensive supplies by “watering it down.” But diluting or adultering food and medicine is theft by misrepresentation and shortchanging. It can also sicken or kill those who consume your products.

• Counterfeit parts are low-quality products represented to be the genuine article. When counterfeit parts are installed in high-stress situations, where a high-quality part is expected and needed, it can cause accidents and death.

In brief, be a straight shooter (Matthew 7:12). Knowing the right thing, and then doing it, might cost you your job. But it also might save lives, and certainly save your conscience.

Be generous to those in need. The Bible reminds us to be generous to those in need (Deuteronomy 15:7-8; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Timothy 6:17-19; Hebrews 13:16; James 2:15-16). And not just generous, but cheerfully generous (Deuteronomy 15:10; 2 Corinthians 9:7). You’re cheerful because you’re using God’s grace to you to help someone else, effectively sharing the Gospel in a practical manner. You’re mastering your wealth, rather than the other way around.

We also learn whom to be generous to.

• Support your family, including your extended family (Exodus 20:12). Jesus criticized those who wouldn’t support their parents, who instead devoted resources for Temple use (Mark:7:9-13). If we support church ministries, but not our family members who are in material need, then we’re doing things wrong. Charity begins at home (1 Timothy 5:3-4).

• Support the church. In Paul’s letters a recurring theme is collecting for the saints in Jerusalem (Romans 15:25-27; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:1-6; 2 Corinthians 9:1-4). Paul himself is supported by the Macedonians, who were poor and yet generous in support of spreading the Gospel (2 Corinthians 11:7-9).

• Support your neighbor. Jesus’ parable about the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29:37) shows that Christians shouldn’t limit their help to just their physical neighbors, or confine it to other Christians. Yet understand that in your charity you’ll have to learn how to tell the needy from the deceivers. You ought to be working to get needy people “on their feet” again, and not merely easing your conscience by flipping a few dollars their way.

The rich and the poor alike can have a generous heart. The Macedonians were very poor, and yet dug deep for the church in Jerusalem out of heartfelt concern (2 Corinthians 8:2-3). You’re never so poor that you’re disqualified from caring. The degree of your generosity is something you can discuss with God.

For a deeper discussion on wealth and its responsibilities, visit the web sites referenced in this end note.[viii]

Selected success stories of repairing American capitalism

The Bible says the wealthy are to be honest, not influencing officials to favor them versus the poor. These warnings also apply to businesses. They could easily defraud their customers through false weights or adulterated products. And they could oppress their own workers by misusing the employer / employee relationship.

American business practices haven’t always been the finest examples of applied Christianity. But America has also been open to reforming, collectively willing to see our errors and change. Here are some past examples of successful changes in economic morality.

• Occupational safety: Whether at a factory or construction site, work activities can be dangerous. Examples include machines with exposed moving parts, fumes or dust that damage workers’ lungs, and inadequate fire exits.[ix]

But adding safety guards, and implementing safety procedures, increase operating costs. This puts a safety-minded producer at a price-competitive disadvantage with less scrupulous competitors (Exodus 21:28-36; Deuteronomy 22:8). Without external pressure, whether moral, economic, or legal, worker safety loses out.

Since businesses were unable to collectively reform on their own initiative, activists campaigned for safety laws. After about sixty years of effort, by 1948 all the U.S. states had workplace safety laws and workmen compensation laws.[x]

• Child labor in factories: In the 1800s children were encouraged to work in factories, sometimes alongside their parents. Although it may have increased the family income, it also kept the children out of school and stunted their adult career possibilities.

After many years of passing child labor laws, only to have them struck down, those passed in 1938 stuck. These laws, in addition to side effects of the Great Depression, effectively ended the employment of children in factories.[xi]

• Food and drug laws: In the 1800s an increasing amount of our food was processed and packaged in factories. With the processing hidden from consumers, unscrupulous vendors did much to cheapen the products, yet selling them as the genuine article. For example, diseased or rotten meat was disguised to seem good. These business practices were unhealthy for consumers, and robbed them by not providing the purity or quantity they paid for.

Although food safety activists had campaigned for decades to implement food purity and inspection laws,[xii] nothing substantial happened until the author Upton Sinclair published his novel The Jungle.[xiii] He hoped that his expose of horrific conditions in meat packing plants would promote a socialist revolution. What actually transpired was a successful push for increasingly effective food and drug laws.[xiv]

These examples show a pattern for getting the desired social change. Mere moral outrage doesn’t produce the desired change in society. Rather, persistent argument works to change individual beliefs. Eventually enough people believe that the complaint has merit, and social pressure results in a permanent individual behavior change. Usually the social pressure is reinforced with legal sanctions having a painful bite.

How to fix an economic immorality

In the past, Americans responded to patterns of unjust business practices and fixed them. But do we still have the ability to overcome such challenges? Let’s examine something that I think should get changed, a form of worker oppression. We’ll discover how could we change our attitudes and behaviors to eliminate it.

A sweatshop is “a factory or workshop, especially in the clothing industry, where manual workers are employed at very low wages for long hours and under poor conditions.”[xv] Frequently these factories have dangerous workplace conditions. In the United States corrective labor laws have almost eliminated sweatshops.[xvi] Some of this change is through improved working conditions, but the biggest reduction is caused by this sort of work having moved to foreign factories.

A problem with this job export is that workplace conditions in these factories are worse than we ever imagined. Many articles show that these foreign factories make their employees work long hours,[xvii] in unsafe workplaces,[xviii] while spewing pollution into the neighborhood.[xix] Americans get cheap fashion and these workers pay for it with their health, even their lives.

This is really an American economic scandal because we’re hiring these factories. We’re letting them sin on our behalf, by contracting for goods at prices we know are too low to provide decent working conditions.

Suppose a factory were to change things to provide a better worker experience. Those changes would raise its production costs. However, their American buyers won’t accept those higher costs and would move their business elsewhere. So, instead of making changes, they merely cheat at workplace inspections and keep abusing their workers.[xx]

We shouldn’t turn a blind eye to how our goods are made. We mustn’t accept ruining someone’s health just to get inexpensive clothes and toys. How can we go about fixing things?

Recognize that there is a problem. Acknowledge that there is a problem with these imported goods, then tell others. No significant changes will occur until there is a critical mass of people demanding them.

Pay more to patronize the good guys. Learn which firms insist on better labor conditions, then give your business to them. Hewing to something like a “Healthy Workplaces Seal” creates public opinion about the issue. Be willing to pay a premium for such goods, for merely seeking the lowest price is how the foreign sweatshop problem got started.

Criticize the bad guys. Investigate business supply chains, and shame those who keep using oppressed labor. See through those cover-up reports that hide workplace problems. This is the flip side of patronizing the good guys. No business wants bad publicity.

Get the government to lean on the bad guys. We can’t prosecute foreign producers for not hewing to American workplace or environmental standards. But we can sanction their imports. Create a foreign EPA, a foreign OSHA, inspecting their factories and supply chains. Their findings can lead to punitive tariffs. If a factory won’t spend for safety or cleanliness, why should they pocket their savings? They’ll soon learn to spend on health and safety, rather than lose their business, or line Uncle Sam’s wallet.

As with other social change campaigns, expect that this effort will require long, persistent effort before there are signs of success. By the way, can someone tell me where to get shirts made with the “Healthy Workplaces Seal?”

Conclusions

Let’s return to our original question: Is capitalism immoral? No, it isn’t. The Bible likes private property ownership, and endorses capitalism.

A more pointed question is: Can there be immorality in society’s capitalism? But of course! This article has shown many examples of this in American economic history. It comes about because society is, or was, willing to tolerate immorality.

A society’s morals are the collective result of individual morals. There isn’t an amorphous “it is society’s fault,” where we get to blame our environment for our own attitudes and deeds. Each of us are responsible for our own sins, our own failings. The great thing about this is how we can change and learn to act more morally. Changing beliefs and behaviors is the beginning to fixing any social, or economic, problem.

Footnotes:

[i] Nichols, John, Bernie Sanders Went to Rome to Discuss the Immorality of Unfettered Capitalism, The Nation, April 17, 2016, https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-just-met-with-pope-francis-to-discuss-the-immorality-of-unfettered-capitalism/

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

[iv] Smith, George H., The Slave Trade and the Constitution, Libertarianism.org, September 29, 2017, https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/slave-trade-constitution

[v] US law abolishing transatlantic slave trade takes effect, Oxford University Press, January 2, 2012, https://blog.oup.com/2012/01/slave-trade/

[vi] Sieff, Kevin, An African country reckons with its history of selling slaves, Washington Post, January 29, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/an-african-country-reckons-with-its-history-of-selling-slaves/2018/01/29/5234f5aa-ff9a-11e7-86b9-8908743c79dd_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7f453fdfe6fb

[vii] Brown, Chris, 3 Things the Bible Says About Money, Stewardship, May 21, 2015, https://www.stewardship.com/articles/3-things-the-bible-says-about-money

[viii] These web pages are well-composed summaries of Bible teaching on wealth and its responsibilities. They’re worth visiting.

• What Does the Bible Say About Money and Wealth?, Christian Bible Reference Site, https://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_money.htm

• What Does the Bible Say About Generosity and Duty to the Poor?, Christian Bible Reference Site, https://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_generosity.htm

• Sunshine, Dr. Glenn, Rich and Poor 2, Institute For Faith, Work & Economics, May 29, 2012, https://tifwe.org/rich-and-poor-2/

[ix] Brown, Don, 3 TURNING POINTS IN THE HISTORY OF WORKPLACE SAFETY, BasicSafe, August 5, 2014, https://info.basicsafe.us/safety-management/blog/3-turning-points-in-the-history-of-workplace-safety

[x] Aldrich, Mark, History of Workplace Safety in the United States, 1880-1970, EH.Net Encyclopedia, August 14, 2001, http://eh.net/encyclopedia/history-of-workplace-safety-in-the-united-states-1880-1970/

[xi] Child Labor in America: History, Policy, and Legislative Issues, EveryCRSReport, February 9, 2005 (revised through November 18, 2013), https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31501.html

[xii] Saxowsky, David, Milestones in U.S. Food Law, North Dakota State University, https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/foodlaw/overview/history/milestones

[xiii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

[xiv] Pure Food and Drug Act: A Muckraking Triumph, United States History, https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h917.html

[xv] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sweatshop

[xvi] Segment hosted by Zwillich, Todd, When ‘Made in America’ Means Made in Sweatshops, WNYC, September 11, 2017, https://www.wnyc.org/story/when-made-america-still-means-sweatshops/

[xvii] Merchant, Brian, Life and death in Apple’s forbidden city, The Guardian, June 18, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract

[xviii] Barboza, David, In Chinese Factories, Lost Fingers and Low Pay, New York Times, January 5, 2008, https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/business/worldbusiness/05sweatshop.html

[xix] Yardley, Jim, Bangladesh Pollution, Told in Colors and Smells, New York Times, July 14, 2013, https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/world/asia/bangladesh-pollution-told-in-colors-and-smells.html

[xx] Roberts, Dexter and Engardio, Pete, Secrets, lies, and sweatshops, Bloomberg Businessweek, November 17, 2006, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15768032/ns/business-us_business/t/secrets-lies-sweatshops/

It’s true that socialist Bernie Sanders is anything but a millennial. And it’s true that socialism was popular long before any millennials were born. But there’s no doubt that socialism is becoming increasingly popular among young people today. Why?

According to the Daily Caller, “Young people view socialism as more attractive than older people. Of people ages 18-29, 55 percent considered socialism favorably compared to other age groups, according to a 2016 Gallup poll. Only 37 percent of people between the ages 30 and 49 viewed socialism as positive. 27% percent of people between 50 and 64 years old thought of socialism positively.”

So, millennials, especially younger millennials, have a very favorable view of socialism. But do they – or most of us – even know what it is?

Prof. Jay Richards offers this helpful primer:

“Marx and his disciples claimed that ‘capitalism’ must give way to ‘socialism,’ where private property would be abolished and an all-powerful state would own everything on behalf of the people. That’s what Marx meant by the word socialism, and that’s the main dictionary definition.

“This was only supposed to be a stage, though, not the end of all our strivings. At some point, under socialism, people would lose their silly fondness for property, family, religion, and other evils. A ‘new socialist man’ would emerge and then the state would ‘wither away.’ Everyone would enjoy peace, prosperity, and the brotherhood of man. Marx and his acolytes called that final, stateless paradise ‘communism.’”

And how has that vision worked itself out in history?

Prof. Richards states: “Here’s the point: Those regimes led by mass murderers with their gulags, death camps, man-made famines and killing fields were socialist. That’s not slander. It’s what these countries called themselves. USSR stood for the ‘Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.’

“You gotta break millions of eggs with socialism to make the communist omelet. Socialism, you might say, was the necessary evil to reach the bliss where no state would be necessary.”

Yet the lure of socialism continues, getting stronger in the last few years, especially among American youth. Why?

Here are three simple reasons.

1) Young people want “equality.” The word “equality” has become almost sacred to the younger generation, and in many ways, that’s a good thing. They want a level playing field. They want everyone treated fairly. They want to leave behind our discriminatory, racist past. All that is positive.

Unfortunately, there is often a passion for equality that is not based on realism (or function, as in all the talk about “marriage equality,” where sex differences are blurred).

The fact is that life is not always fair. There are winners and losers. And some people work harder than others, because of which they succeed more.

That success is well-deserved and should be appreciated. But all too often today, success through hard work is scorned.

Question: “Why should you have more than I do?”

Answer: “Because I worked hard for it.”

Response: “But that’s not fair.”

Socialism, then, is the fix!

2) Young people today have a deep sense of entitlement. Conservapedia.com defines the entitlement mentality as “a state of mind in which an individual comes to believe that privileges are instead rights, and that they are to be expected as a matter of course.”

I am owed a free lunch, and it’s got to be a good lunch too. The lunch of my choosing. I deserve it.

As explained by Dr. John Townsend in his book The Entitlement Cure, “Entitlement is the belief that I am exempt from responsibility and I am owed special treatment. Entitlement is: the man who thinks he is above all the rules. The woman who feels mistreated and needs others to make it up to her.”

This dangerous attitude is crippling a whole generation. As expressed by Kate S. Rourke in her article, “You Owe Me: Examining a Generation of Entitlement,” “Children in the most recent generation of adults born between 1982 and 1995, known as ‘Generation Y,’ were raised to believe that it is their right to have everything given to them more than any other previous generation.”

Socialism plays right into this mindset, especially the fuzzy, idealized, quite-unrealistic socialism being put forward today: “We all get our free lunch!”

Unfortunately, that can only happen when the government owns all the lunches. Do young people understand this?

3) Young socialists haven’t done the math. The obvious question is this: “If you’re getting a free lunch – no, if we’re all getting a free lunch – who’s paying for it?”

The immediate, thoughtless answer is: “The government!”

And that leads to the real question: “Who’s paying the government?”

The answer is as painful as it is obvious: “You are!”

As one news commentator suggested, there’s no reason to wait for the government to become socialist. Just start paying more taxes today and do your part. Right!

Do you remember the viral video clip where a young Florida woman, Peggy Joseph, was ecstatic after hearing candidate Barack Obama speak in 2008? She said, “I won’t have to worry about puttin’ gas in my car, I won’t have to worry about payin’ my mortgage.” Obama will take care of it!

Six years later, working as a nurse and the suburban mom of four kids, she was asked by filmmaker Joel Gilbert, “Did Obama pay for your mortgage and did he pay for your gas?”

She laughed and replied, “Absolutely not! Mortgage got worse and gas prices got higher… At that time we needed a change but a change for the better not the worse.”

When I asked my assistant Dylan, himself in his early 30’s and the married father of four, why he thought so many young people were into socialism, he answered, “Perhaps because of being so absorbed with social media that they’re used to soundbite answers and haven’t thought it through.”

Or, as Jay Richards stated, “Too many of us are still clueless about socialism and communism. I blame biased media and fuzzy thinking.”

The bottom line is that most young proponents of socialism simply haven’t done the math. Had they done so, they’d start working the capitalist system a little harder. They would find it far more rewarding than socialism.

This article originally posted at AFA.net.

Written by Joseph A. Morris

Forgive me while I vituperate.

I am stunned.  I thought that I have been reasonably attentive to trends in British jurisprudence in recent years.  Through the long, dark night of Britain’s subordination to the diktats of Brussels and the less-than-Anglo-Saxon notions that pass for “human rights” in the courts of the European Union, I had thought that British courts, including the still-young Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that has succeeded the House of Lords in serving as Britain’s court of last resort, were still going about the business of vindicating “the rights of Englishmen.”  Apparently not;  at least if the Englishman is not yet quite two years old.

Instead, it seems, the British judiciary now sees its highest duty to be, not the vindication of individual liberty but the enforcement of the supreme authority of the administrative state.  I am dismayed by what I see, and gobsmacked that I did not see it coming.

I attach a copy of the order and opinion of April 20, 2018, entered by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the case of Alfie Evans, the 23-month-old child who lies fighting for his life in Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool, England.  This order is the child’s death warrant.

The hospital has decided that the child is so ill that no care can save him and therefore no one should try.  The hospital detached him from his breathing apparatus on Monday night (April 23d).  To the bureaucracy’s horror, Alfie still lives.  Alfie is not dying quickly enough to satisfy the hospital, and now it plans to deny him food and water.

Meanwhile, Alfie’s parents would like to take Alfie home — or take him somewhere else where other doctors and hospitals can treat him.  Hospitals as far away as Italy have offered to accept Alfie, and have even sent ground ambulances and air ambulances to transport him.  They have all been rebuffed by Alder Hey Hospital, which decrees that Alfie must die.

Late today the Supreme Court heard an emergency application begging it to reverse itself.  The application asserted at least two new circumstances:  First is that Alfie is still alive tonight.  His survival defies the prediction of the all-knowing doctors at Alder Hey that he would not be able to live once detached from the respirator.  Second is the remarkable intervention of the Government of Italy, which has granted Alfie Italian citizenship, generously offered to see to Alfie’s medical and hospital care, and even sent a military air ambulance and team to England to fly Alfie to a hospital in Rome that believes it has pioneered a therapy that stands a chance at saving Alfie.  Lawyers for Alfie’s parents and for the Government of Italy were in the courtroom in London to argue the emergency petition today.  The Court rejected the application and said that it won’t entertain others.   Insofar as I know, it did so without a written opinion.  So the attached opinion is the British judiciary’s highest and last written effort to explain itself.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom holds that the last word on Alfie’s fate must rest with the hospital where he lies. The parents are not permitted to take him to another hospital;  they are not even allowed to take him home to die in their arms.  Die Alfie must, and he must die when and where the health care bureaucracy tells him to die.

The bureaucracy in question is not some corporate chain of megahospitals;  nor is it the grasping, heartless insurance company of Bernie Sanders’s nightmares.  No. It is Britain’s vaunted National Health System, the socialist paradise.

The Court holds that the preferences of the bureaucracy count for more than the judgments of Alfie’s parents.  The Court does not explain why that must be.  The Court’s opinion leads ineluctably to the conclusion that the views of the bureaucracy count for more than the views of a family in determining what is in the best interests of a child.  “Best interests” — undefined and unparsed — is the “Gold Standard”, the Court bleats again and again, that must govern decisions about the welfare of a child.  What principle limits this “Gold Standard”, then, to cases involving the welfare of children?  The next case — the case when the views of the bureaucracy must outweigh the views of a conscious, sober, autonomous adult regarding his own care, treatment, and risks of death — is immediately on the horizon.

Alfie’s case is very different from the case of Terri Schiavo, the 41-year-old woman who died in 2005 in the State of Florida after being removed from life support.  In that case, to be sure, the medical and hospital bureaucracy strongly wanted to “pull the plug” on a woman whom medical science found to be in a “persistent vegetative state”.  But the bureaucracy there were merely experts advising the parties:  Ms. Schiavo’s husband versus Ms. Schiavo’s parents.  The Schiavo case was decided not on the basis of the bureaucracy’s views, but because the courts of Florida and the United States held that Ms. Schiavo’s fate should be decided by her family and because, in her divided family, her husband stood closer to her than did her parents.  To be sure, the bureaucracy aligned with the husband;  but it was the time-honored primacy of the spousal relationship over any other that carried the day.  It was the highest and closest family member, not a bureaucracy of strangers, that was held to be the proper judge of Ms. Schiavo’s “best interests”.

Alfie, by contrast, has no spouse.  He has parents.  There is no one closer to him.  Alfie has a mother and a father who, although not married, are as one in their judgment that they, and not the hospital, should decide what is in Alfie’s “best interests”, and that it is in Alfie’s “best interests” to give him the chance to live.

The Court’s decision is an embarrassment.  Its opinion is shallow, an insult to the intelligence of readers, lay and professional.

The proposition the Court sustains is that strangers — physicians;  a hospital;  a taxpayer-funded health benefits payment system — have final authority, superior to that of an child’s parents, to decide on the child’s course of care.  This judgment shocks the conscience.  The Court does not explain why it must be so.  It simply repeats, as if chanting the text of a talisman, that “best interests” is the “Gold Standard”.  The Court assumes, without explaining why, that doctors and bureaucrats, rather than parents and families, are better judges of “best interests”.

There is nothing in the record that makes Section 1 of the Custody of Children Act of 1891, “now repealed”, cited at Paragraph 7, even remotely apposite.  There is no evidence that the parents have “deserted” or “abandoned” the child, or that they have conducted themselves in such a way that they should be denied custody.  No basis is stated at Paragraph 8, invoking the successor acts, to show that, under these circumstances, it is in the best interests of the child to hasten his death rather than to let him live out his life, for such duration and such quality as it may have, in the custody of his parents — his natural custodians who have done anything but abandon him.

A hospital currently has custody.  The Court states at Paragraph 13  that “it has been conclusively determined that it is not in Alfie’s best interests, not only to stay in Alder Hey Hospital being treated as he currently is, but also to travel abroad for the same purpose.”  So why deny custody to his parents?  If the child is destined to die, no matter what, why condemn him to remain in a hospital that has declared its intention to hasten his death?  Why not allow his parents to tend to the child as best they can, whether to accord him hospice care at home or to seek out the best care that they, in their judgment, can obtain?

Why are the views of the doctors and the hospital deserving of greater weight than the views of the parents as to what is in the bests interest of the child, especially when, now, the hospital and the doctors not merely concede but affirmatively declare that there is nothing that the hospital and the doctors can do for the benefit of the child save to starve him and dehydrate him to death?

And why is definitive weight given to the views of this particular set of doctors and hospital administrators when, it seems, that there are other doctors and hospitals, in and out of the United Kingdom, who are willing to try to treat the child?

The only error chargeable against the parents, it would seem, is that at some point they were foolish enough to entrust their child to the care of a hospital and a set of physicians who are so cruel and so arrogant as are the set at Alder Hey Hospital.  Alfie was born on May 9, 2016, and was ill from birth.  Afflicted soon after birth with a mysterious degenerative illness that seems to be related to a defect in mitochondrial DNA, he was brought by his parents to Alder Hey Hospital on December 1, 2016, after suffering seizures.  Doctors thought he wouldn’t survive then, but he fought for life, beating a severe infection.  Alder Hey Hospital has been his home for more than a year.  Adler Hey doesn’t want him anymore.  But the hospital refuses to let him leave alive.

The hospital admits — nay, it asserts —  that there is nothing that the hospital can do to benefit the child.  Why, then, is the hospital entitled to custody of the child solely for the purpose of making sure that he dies as speedily as possible?

Is not the Court’s decision an abjuration of the individual liberty of the child and his parents;  the right of parents to guide and care for their minor children;  and the duty of a British court to protect any person seeking the writ of habeas corpus?

What is the true objective of the proponents of the position adopted by the Court in this case?

Is it to protect the public fisc against the costs of care of hopeless cases?  Then why not let the parents obtain care for the child, as they seek to do, at their own expense or, in any event, at the expense of someone other than Britain’s socialist health care system?

Is it to protect the public fisc, as some contend, against the possibility that English tort law gives the parents a right of action against the hospital and the doctors for negligent care if the child reaches, as he will within a fortnight, the age of two years?  That is, is the aim of the decision, not to mitigate the child’s suffering but, instead, to make sure that the child does not reach an age when his claims against those who may have maltreated him become actionable?  If so, should that not be honestly stated?

Or is it to establish the principle that none of us — oneself if one is an adults;  or by one’s parents if one is a child — is in charge of his own life, but we must all surrender our autonomy to the supreme knowledge of doctors and hospital administrators (even if we arrive in their clutches by the merest chance)?  Then are not the lives and liberty of all of us at risk?

This is a dark hour for British justice.  Parliament and the British judiciary stand indicted by their own actions and inactions of cruelty, intellectual dishonesty, and the high crime of hostility to life and liberty.

People the world over have hitherto so admired British justice that they have written into countless contracts choice-of-law and choice-of-forum clauses that would bring their disputes under the laws of England — hitherto the “Gold Standard” (a phrase the Court uses as a substitute for the reasoning that it shows itself incapable of articulating) of human justice.  Perhaps universal admiration of British justice needs to be reconsidered.  The case of Alfie Evans provides a far more compelling reason than “Brexit” for potential litigants, the world over, to want to keep British courts out of their affairs.

The message of the case of Alfie Evans is that British courts can no longer be trusted to protect life and liberty and have, instead, surrendered themselves to the supremacy of bureaucratic tyranny that is the antithesis of the rule of law.

Don’t take my word for it.  Read the decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom yourself.  It’s only four pages long.  Ask yourself if this is persuasive jurisprudence of the kind that once made the brain acknowledge the rigor of British judicial reasoning — and made the heart swell in admiration of British justice.

Joseph A. Morris is a Partner in the law firm of Morris & De La Rosa, with offices in Chicago and London. He maintains an active practice conducting trials and appeals in the areas of constitutional, business, labor and international law.

Feminist writers claim American society is fundamentally flawed because of “patriarchy.” Whether by accident or design, this claim coincides with the Marxist goal to destroy the concept of family. This destruction is needed to implement the theft and redistribution of all property.

Christians believe that God created man and woman, and called them to join in marriage, raising children in families. If these activists are successful Christian families won’t be allowed to parent children in the way we believe.

The activists are educating the American public to reject the roles of husband and wife, to redefine the family as merely “something that takes care of you.” Defending against this assault means re-educating both Christians, and the public, regarding the roles of husband and wife. We also need to re-assert the mother-and-father model of family.

Previous attempts to ban families, such as in Russia, failed horribly. But failures never stopped Marxists before. We need to work, so that these activists don’t get the opportunity to try again, this time with America being the victim.

Why does this document mention Marxism so much?

Socialism and communism are both rooted in the philosophy of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels. Its proponents believe in Marxism so strongly that you’d think it is a religion. It is the fire behind the intolerant college scene, Bernie Sanders’ political rise, and the “Antifa” rioting. Marxism also drives the assault on the family.

What is this patriarchy that must be destroyed?

Many voices criticize patriarchy and want to replace it with… something. But all these voices come with many definitions. Their ideas of patriarchy might not match up with yours. Let’s discover what exactly we’re supposed to condemn. Here are a few prominent voices on patriarchy.

Gloria Jean Watkins, who writes under the name Bell Hooks [i], says in Understanding Patriarchy that:

“Patriarchy is the single most life-threatening social disease assaulting the male body and spirit in our nation.” [ii]

She would prefer to call it “imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy,” [iii] but can’t stand the resulting laughter. She calls this laughter “a weapon of patriarchal terrorism” [iv] Again,

“Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence.” [v]

She argues that a society that expects men and women to fulfill roles damages them. Quoting Terrence Real:

“Psychological patriarchy is the dynamic between those qualities deemed ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ in which half of our human traits are exalted while the other half is devalued. Both men and women participate in this tortured value system. Psychological patriarchy is a ‘dance of contempt,’ a perverse form of connection that replaces true intimacy with complex, covert layers of dominance and submission, collusion and manipulation. It is the unacknowledged paradigm of relationships that has suffused Western civilization generation after generation, deforming both sexes, and destroying the passionate bond between them.” [vi]

Video blogging on the site EverydayFeminism.com, Marina Watanabe gives her version of patriarchy:

“In the simplest terms, patriarchy is a social system that values masculinity over femininity. This type of social system dictates that men are entitled to be in charge and dominate women. And it implies that the natural state of gender relations is a dynamic of dominance and submission….This system forces people into strict boxes called gender roles, and gender roles hurt everybody. If someone who is assigned a certain gender at birth doesn’t fit into the social norms expected of that gender, they’re often ostracized by society.” [vii]

From the London Feminist Network (founded by Finn Mackay):

“Patriarchy is the term used to describe the society in which we live today, characterized by current and historic unequal power relations between men and women whereby women are systematically disadvantaged and oppressed. This takes place across almost every sphere of life, but is particularly noticeable in women’s under-representation in key state institutions, in decision-making positions and in employment and industry. Male violence against women is also a key feature of patriarchy. Women in minority groups face multiple oppressions in this society, as race, class and sexuality intersect with sexism for example.” [viii]

Is patriarchy really all of that?

Collecting these definitions, patriarchy is:

1.) A political and social system where strong men dominate women and weak men. Because of their domination, and use of terror and violence, they get to take what they want. It causes male violence against women.

2.) Something that requires men and women to act in society-approved gender roles.

3.) A life-threatening condition, debilitating men’s health and sapping the spirit of the nation.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition is:

“Definition of PATRIARCHY

social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line” [ix]

The activist definitions differ from the dictionary listing mostly through claiming that violence is an integral part of patriarchy. The violence claim might just be there to grab your attention, to convince you that their arguments have urgency. However, the claim can’t be proven because there are no non-patriarchal societies. There is no way to compare two places and show that patriarchy increases or reduces various crimes.

In fact, statistics of property crimes, and of violent crimes against women, vary widely between nations, cities, and even between neighborhoods of the same city. The statistics show that many factors influence crime rates. You can’t blame a patriarchal society structure for crime – unless your intent is slander.

In this study we’ll ignore the sensational claims and accept the dictionary definition of patriarchy. Anyway, for activists these extra claims are just talking points. They don’t want to reform it, but would rather remove patriarchy from America.

“Remove patriarchy!” disguises the real goal: abolishing the family

Suppose we humor our “prominent voices” and contemplate removing patriarchy from American society. How might this be done? Both Bell Hooks and Finn Mackay have advice. (Marina Watanabe is silent here.)

In her Understanding Patriarchy, Bell Hooks uses the language of social revolution. She would remove the roles, behaviors, and expectations that society has of men and women. In illustration, she recounts an episode in the life of a son of Terrence Real, a fellow author. One day the boy dressed up in girls’ clothes, like a Barbie doll. He was quickly set straight by his neighborhood playmates. Boys don’t dress up like girls, right? Apparently Mr. Real didn’t like that result, and neither does Ms. Hooks.

“[Terrence] Real at least offers his boys a choice: they can choose to be themselves or they can choose conformity with patriarchal roles.” [x]

Her “visionary feminist thinking” [xi] would invalidate male and female roles. It would also invalidate parenting roles, because in her world whatever the child invents, or is influenced to believe, is already normal and acceptable, to be immediately acted upon. We already see the results of such thinking every day, such as a 5-yr old being transgendered. [xii]

Bell Hooks’ writings have also been applauded as being Marxist.

“This brand is specifically Marxist, as it primarily consists of a critique of the current ‘racist, sexist, capitalist state’–one of Hooks’ favorite and frequently repeated phrases–and gestures toward the development of a new social order based not on artificial (gender, racial, economic, and political) dualism but on the respect for each individual as an individual, not a politically constructed identity.” [xiii]

Finn Mackay prefers the traditional revolutionary route to change.

“Feminism is one of the oldest and most powerful social movements in history; it is a revolutionary movement, and that means change. There is so much wrong with the present system that we can’t just tinker round the edges, we need to start again; our end point cannot be equality in an unequal world. This is also the reason why feminism is not struggling to simply reverse the present power relationship and put women in charge instead of men (though this is a common myth about feminist politics). Feminism is about change, not a changing of the guard.” [xiv]

The Hooks and Mackay quotes are in line with standard-issue Marxism. It abolishes the concept of private property, giving everything to the State. But people who marry, raise children, and plan their lives around their families, won’t go along with this scheme. So the family must also be abolished.

“With the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not.” [xv]

“But what will quite certainly disappear from monogamy are all the features stamped upon it through its origin in property relations; these are, in the first place, supremacy of the man, and, secondly, indissolubility. The supremacy of the man in marriage is the simple consequence of his economic supremacy, and with the abolition of the latter will disappear of itself. The indissolubility of marriage is partly a consequence of the economic situation in which monogamy arose, partly tradition from the period when the connection between this economic situation and monogamy was not yet fully understood and was carried to extremes under a religious form. Today it is already broken through at a thousand points. If only the marriage based on love is moral, then also only the marriage in which love continues. But the intense emotion of individual sex-love varies very much in duration from one individual to another, especially among men, and if affection definitely comes to an end or is supplanted by a new passionate love, separation is a benefit for both partners as well as for society – only people will then be spared having to wade through the useless mire of a divorce case.” [xvi]

In summary, remove the roles of the parents. After that the family structure itself is pointless. The concepts of the activists align themselves with classic Marxist thought.

The Bible, gender roles, and the family

Moses, describing the origin of mankind, splits the story into two sections. Genesis 1:26-30 tells the story of the sixth day. God created mankind, both male and female (verse 27). Together they are to “be fruitful and multiply” (verse 28) and rule over all the fish, the birds, the beasts, and over plants of the earth (verse 29). The man and woman together have this task. The second section, Genesis 2:15-25, tells details of creating Adam, then Eve. After instructing Adam that he needed a helper (verse 20) God created Eve, a suitable helper, from a part of Adam.

In Genesis 2:24, marriage is described as the husband and wife becoming one flesh, Adam and Eve style. It isn’t merely a social arrangement, but something much closer. In Matthew 19:6 Jesus repeats this concept to the Pharisees, that “what therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” There is no way around it, God created marriage.

In marriage the husband and wife are equally important but have different roles. The husband is to be the head of the partnership. [xvii] The concept of patriarchy comes from this. This headship is confirmed in the account of the fall (Genesis 3). One of Eve’s consequences was that “yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (verse 16). God also chastised Adam for listening to Eve and eating the forbidden fruit (verse 17), indicating Adam’s existing responsibility over Eve.

After Jesus’ resurrection the marriage pattern, with its roles, is retained. All believers, both male and female, have equal standing in Christ (Galatians 3:28). Yet the husband is to love his wife even as Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5:25, 28). Putting your life on the line to protect your wife and family is quite a charge, not lording it over them. This charge doesn’t belong in the same world as the claim of “dominating your wife.” [xviii]

American society accepts and builds on the Christian concept of family. There are laws to protect individual family members from physical, financial, or property abuse. Men and women are equal before the law. There is nothing like the sharia law convention that “the man’s testimony in court is always believed more than that of a woman.” (Quran 2:282, Sahih Bukhari (a Hadith book) 6:301) That is, civil law doesn’t put up with the claim of

“…the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence.” [xix]

Abolishing patriarchy and the family has been tried before (it failed)

These activists, Marxist or not, wish to redefine male and female roles, make marriage insignificant, and thereby abolish patriarchy from society. It turns out that this has been tried before, with abject failure.

In 1917, as soon as the Bolsheviks (Communists) gained the upper hand in Russia, even before concluding a peace with Germany, they began implementing their “end private property” and “end marriage” plans.

“To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of the ages we had to give it a good shakeup, and we did,” declared Madame Smidovich, a leading Communist and active participant in the recent discussion. [xx]

The plan was to remove the responsibilities, and thus the roles, of the husband and wife. Without those roles patriarchy would disappear.

“Will the family continue to exist under communism? Will the family remain in the same form? These questions are troubling many women of the working class and worrying their menfolk as well. Life is changing before our very eyes; old habits and customs are dying out, and the whole life of the proletarian family is developing in a way that is new and unfamiliar and, in the eyes of some, ‘bizarre’. No wonder that working women are beginning to think these questions over. Another fact that invites attention is that divorce has been made easier in Soviet Russia. The decree of the Council of People’s Commissars issued on 18 December 1917 means that divorce is, no longer a luxury that only the rich can afford; henceforth, a working woman will not have to petition for months or even for years to secure the right to live separately from a husband who beats her and makes her life a misery with his drunkenness and uncouth behaviour. Divorce by mutual agreement now takes no more than a week or two to obtain. Women who are unhappy in their married life welcome this easy divorce. But others, particularly those who are used to looking upon their husband as ‘breadwinners’, are frightened. They have not yet understood that a woman must accustom herself to seek and find support in the collective and in society, and not from the individual man.” [xxi]

The government promised to remove from women the tasks of keeping house and of raising children. In place of these things the women were expected to do more factory work, what the bureaucrats really valued. Immediately there was a flood of divorces. Because divorce was easy, sometimes obtainable within an hour, men flitted from girl to girl.

“ ‘Some men have twenty wives, living a week with one, a month with another,’ asserted an indignant woman delegate during the sessions of the Tzik. ‘They have children with all of them, and these children are thrown on the street for lack of support!’ (There are three hundred thousand bezprizorni or shelterless children in Russia to-day, who are literally turned out on the streets. They are one of the greatest social dangers of the present time, because they are developing into professional criminals. More than half of them are drug addicts and sex perverts. It is claimed by many Communists that the break-up of the family is responsible for a large percentage of these children.)” [xxii]

“The peasant villages have perhaps suffered most from this revolution in sex relations. An epidemic of marriages and divorces broke out in the country districts. Peasants with a respectable married life of forty years and more behind them suddenly decided to leave their wives and remarry. Peasant boys looked upon marriage as an exciting game and changed wives with the change of seasons. It was not an unusual occurrence for a boy of twenty to have had three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three or four abortions.” [xxiii]

It also became dangerous not to participate in “free love” (meaning “sexual relations unbounded by moral rules”). As it is said, “everything not forbidden is compulsory.” [xxiv]

“Some members of the League of Communist Youth, an organization which now numbers between a million and a half and two million young men and women, regard the refusal to enter into temporary sex relations as mere bourgeois prejudice, the deadliest sin in the eyes of a Communist.” [xxv]

The Soviet government found that the number of divorces exceeded the number of new marriages. Between the chaos of the new morality and severe losses of men from the Great War and the Russian Civil War, a demographic disaster was looming. By 1936 the Soviet government had rolled back their laws on families and marriage.

“The idea that the state would assume the functions of the family was abandoned,” Goldman wrote. [xxvi] (Wendy Goldman, history professor at Carnegie Mellon University)

In the great Soviet Motherland they abolished marriage roles, parental roles, and any point to having a family. When the populace embraced their new freedoms things fell apart.

Marxism is still alive in America

Communism failed in the Cold War, but so what? Its proponents want to try it again because it just hasn’t been done “right.” [xxvii] Marxists make new proponents every year because we give to them our children.

Marxism is quite alive in our colleges and universities, especially in the humanities. [xxviii] Since getting a teaching degree means passing many humanities classes, teaching candidates spend a lot of time with these Marxist teachers. This discipleship creates the next generation of Marxist teachers. And since practically all university students spend some time taking humanities classes, all students get a dose of Marxist thought.

The continuing infatuation with Marxism helps explain how “multiple genders” and “gender fluidity” came about. If you get people to believe that gender roles are meaningless they will be willing to accept meaningless definitions of family. For example,

Whatever you define family as, family is just a part of belonging to something that takes care of you and nurtures you… [xxix]

The Marxist hope is to move from “gender roles have no meaning” to “when anything can be a family, nothing is a family.” So you see, the apparently obscure argument about patriarchy has society-shaking implications.

Your Call To Action

God created man, woman, and marriage. The married couple are to “be fruitful and multiply”, raising their children in their family. We also see that the husband and wife have different, complementary, and equally valuable roles. But the complaint about patriarchy is intended to break these roles and rebuild society without families.

You have everything at stake in this argument, for “everything not forbidden is compulsory” will come true. Ask that Colorado cake baker: sooner or later, they’ll come for you, too. [xxx] What can you personally do to defend your interests in your family, in your way of life?

First, ask God for understanding. Study the Bible to understand the roles he gave to husbands and wives in families. Also learn how the Bible is a guide for organizing modern society. Sites like the Illinois Family Institute can help you learn.

Second, don’t sacrifice your children’s faith to God-hating indoctrination. It is foolish to pay dear money to send your children to a college, even your own alma mater, if they will learn things only from a Marxist perspective. As an education consumer, with the power of the purse, you have many good alternatives. Refuse to pay for a college education that will ruin your children.

Third, don’t sacrifice your children’s faith to what is going on in your grade schools and high schools. Their staffs will discourage your intervention, claiming that they are the experts. But garbage content dressed up in professional technique is still garbage. [xxxi]

There are still many ways to bring the public schools to task: elect school board candidates not beholden to the unions; deny taxes or bonds for schools; expose the things they teach; encourage spying when they do things behind the parents’ backs. Use your imagination. You can also ask your sons and daughters what they’re being taught, and use your wisdom to correct their understanding.

Fourth, don’t encourage public officials who advocate, or approve of, multiple-gender teaching and other such evil things. All candidates, even a first-time candidate for dog catcher, should be examined on a range of policy and moral issues. Judge them even on issues not immediately pertinent to their intended office. People rise from low offices to higher ones. The longer officials are in office the harder it is to remove them from politics. Prevent bad government through early disqualification of bad candidates.

Join IFI at our Feb. 10th Worldview Conference

We are excited about our fourth annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned John Stonestreet on Sat., Feb. 10, 2010 in Medinah. Mr. Stonestreet serves as President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. He is a sought-after author and speaker on areas of faith and culture, theology, worldview, education and apologetic.  (Click HERE for a flyer.)

Mr. Stonestreet has co-authored four books: A Practical Guide to Culture (2017), Restoring All Things (2015), Same-Sex Marriage (2014), and Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview (2007).

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture:

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

Footnotes:

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_hooks

[ii] Hooks, Bell, Understanding Patriarchy, 2004, http://imaginenoborders.org/pdf/zines/UnderstandingPatriarchy.pdf

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Real, Terrence, How Can I Get Through To You?, http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/servlet/DCARead?standardNo=0684868776&standardNoType=1&excerpt=true

[vii] Watanabe, Marina, https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/11/what-is-patriarchy/

[viii] What is Patriarchy? http://londonfeministnetwork.org.uk/home/patriarchy
From their home page:

We work closely with other groups in London and elsewhere in the UK, supporting various feminist campaigns in order that we can broaden our movement and work together for women’s rights and against patriarchy in all its forms.

[ix] Merriam-Webster dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriarchy

[x] Hooks, Bell, Understanding Patriarchy, 2004, referencing an anecdote of Terrence Real

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/kindergarten-celebrates-5-year-old-transgender-transition-kids-traumatized

[xiii] Kindig, Patrick, https://patrickkindigfeministtheory.blogspot.com/2012/02/bell-hooks-and-post-marxism.html

[xiv] Mackay, Finn, The biggest threat to feminism? It’s not just the patriarchy, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/23/threat-feminism-patriarchy-male-supremacy-dating-makeup

[xv] Engels, Frederick, Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Ch II.4, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm

[xvi] Ibid. Note that this section is also a justification of “free love”, flitting from partner to partner at a whim.

[xvii] Deffinbaugh, Bob, The Meaning of Man: His Duty and His Delight, https://bible.org/seriespage/3-meaning-man-his-duty-and-his-delight-genesis-126-31-24-25

[xviii] Clark, Tom and Clark, Mary, Role of Men, https://lifehopeandtruth.com/relationships/family/role-of-men/

[xix] Hooks, Bell, Understanding Patriarchy, 2004

[xx] A Woman Resident in Russia, The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic, July 1926, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1926/07/the-russian-effort-to-abolish-marriage/306295/

[xxi] Kollanti, Alexandra, Communism and the family, Women’s role in production: its effects on the family, 1920, https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1920/communism-family.htm

[xxii] A Woman Resident in Russia, The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage

[xxiii] Ibid.

[xxiv] Williamson, Kevin, The Right Not To Be Implicated, National Review, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374115/right-not-be-implicated-kevin-d-williamson

[xxv] A Woman Resident in Russia, The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage

[xxvi] Svab, Petr, The Failed Soviet Experiment With ‘Free Love’, https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-failed-communist-experiment-with-free-love_2242535.html

[xxvii] Sanders, Perry and Sitar, Dianna, Socialism Hasn’t Failed; It Hasn’t been tried – Yet!, New Unionist, December 1993, http://www.deleonism.org/text/nu931201.htm

[xxviii] Caplan, Bryan, The Prevalence of Marxism in Academia, http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html

[xxix] Snetiker, Marc, Ellen DeGeneres talks Finding Dory, http://ew.com/article/2016/04/18/finding-dory-ellen-degeneres/

[xxx] Henneberger, Melinda, I’d make a cake for a same-sex wedding, but Colorado baker Jack Phillips shouldn’t have to, The Kansas City Star, December 5, 2017, http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/melinda-henneberger/article188235799.html

[xxxi] Higgins, Laurie, Illinois Association of School Boards’ Disturbing Document, https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/education/illinois_association_schools_disturbing_document/