In a free society, why should only one political side dominate the media? Yet social media, the networks, the cable channels, newspapers, and satellite programming are all completely dominated by the left. Recently, we saw quite a kerfuffle when DirecTV, owned by giant AT&T, decided to ignominiously drop Newsmax-TV from their lineup.

AT&T did the same a year ago to a much smaller conservative outlet, One America News (OAN). Why does it seem that the corporate decisions of companies like AT&T always push in only one political direction?

Numerous leaders have spoken against this censorship by the left against Newsmax, including:

• Dennis Prager
• Mike Huckabee
• Florida Governor Ron DeSantis
• Speaker of the U.S. House Kevin McCarthy
• U.S. Senator Ted Cruz
• Actors Jon Voight and Kevin Sorbo

Many are calling for a boycott of DirectTV. Others are calling for Congressional hearings because of the potential impact on our political debate.

My big question is: Why must the left strangle what few conservative voices are heard on the other side?

When the founders of America produced the Constitution, a frequent criticism was that it did not spell out specific rights. So the founders agreed that if the Constitution were to be ratified, they would attach a Bill of Rights. These were the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution.

The First Amendment deals, first and foremost, with freedom of religion. But other rights enumerated there include the freedom of the press and free speech.

AT&T is a corporation. It is not a part of the government. But these companies wield a great deal of political power. Why are they using it to essentially stifle free speech?

There is no question that the mainstream media, the legacy media, the major networks, and so on present news from a skewed and biased perspective. National Public Radio (NPR), which receives government funding, has a program called “All Things Considered.” I remember whenever I would hear that title, I would think to myself—“Yeah, All Things Considered, from a leftist perspective.”

The founders envisioned a free society with a robust and free press. But today’s mainstream media is dominated by the leftist perspective, with only Fox News offering a significant counterweight.

Thankfully, even under dire conditions, there is always an alternative media. In the days of the American War for Independence, there were Committees of Correspondence, disseminating information to the 13 colonies contrary to royal-controlled sources.

There are different skirmishes in the battle over free speech, and some speech of more eternal significance than others. But let me use an analogy from the history of Christianity.

When the Apostles of Jesus set out to proclaim His saving message in first century Rome, the overwhelming power of the state was dead set against them. But God used them to eventually win over many converts. One of the ways was through letters that were written largely in prison.

Ultimately, there is a battle between good and evil, and the proclamation of the truth is often at the heart of that battle.

As the hymn “Once to Every Man and Nation” puts it, “Though the cause of evil prosper, yet the truth alone is strong. Though [truth’s] portion be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong, yet that scaffold sways the future.” God is watching and making sure that truth will prevail, which it will—even if for a time, times, and a half a time, it suffers setbacks.

Of course, this is not to equate a commercial network like Newsmax with the Gospel. But it’s beyond question that elite interests often suppress truth wherever it comes from. I’m grateful to live at a time where there is readily available an alternative media. I’m sure if some elitists in our culture had their way, they would over-regulate the Internet, talk radio, satellite programming, Christian broadcasting, and so on, to make them essentially toothless—as sometimes happens in other countries.

When Elon Musk bought Twitter late last year, he suffered the ire of many on the left, as he opened up the Twitter files and exposed a great deal of censorship against conservative speech. Musk tweeted in late November: “This is a battle for the future of civilization. If free speech is lost even in America, tyranny is all that lies ahead.”

Dr. Richard Land, president emeritus of the Southern Evangelical Seminary, said of the left’s censorship of conservative speech in general: “They want to enforce conformity, they do not want to hear viewpoints, they want to stifle viewpoints that they disagree with. They’re acting like fascist Blackshirts….They can only get away with taking away our rights if we let them.”

Indeed, must the left strangle the flow of information? As the Bible notes: “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.”

This article was originally published at Jerrynewcombe.com.

Today we give thanks to God for the wisdom and courage of U.S Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito,  Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett for holding that the “Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey are overruled; [and] the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

The syllabus (i.e., summary) in Dobbs v. the Jackson Women’s Health Organization outlines the major arguments addressed by the majority:

• Without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent, Roe imposed on the entire country a detailed set of rules for pregnancy divided into trimesters much like those that one might expect to find in a statute or regulation.

• Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right. Until a few years before Roe, no federal or state court had recognized such a right. Nor had any scholarly treatise. Indeed, abortion had long been a crime in every single State.

• Attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. … Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: Abortion is different because it destroys what Roe termed “potential life” and what the law challenged in this case calls an “unborn human being.” None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion.

• [T]he Court cannot allow its decisions to be affected by such extraneous concerns [i.e., stare decisis/precedent]. A precedent of this Court is subject to the usual principles of stare decisis under which adherence to precedent is the norm but not an inexorable command. If the rule were otherwise, erroneous decisions like Plessy would still be the law.

Writing for the Court, Justice Alito made mincemeat of the lousy arguments proffered in Roe and Casey, but the political invertebrate Chief Justice John Roberts did what he does best. He tried to swim smack dab down the middle of this roaring river. Hard to do without a spine. The political Roberts voted with the majority but refused to overturn Roe and Casey despite numerous leftist legal scholars acknowledging for decades that Roe lacked any grounding in the U.S. Constitution.

Justice Thomas again renewed his quest to revisit “substantive due process” jurisprudence, which he argues “has harmed our country in many ways,” and, therefore, “we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.” He shares this view with Justices Antonin Scalia and Hugo Black as well as Robert Bork and many other legal scholars.

Thomas has long argued that because of the “erroneous” nature of substantive due process jurisprudence, “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

Those cases addressed, respectively, the purported constitutional right to access contraception, the purported constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy, and the purported constitutional right of two people of the same sex to marry.

To be clear, Thomas’ argument regarding substantive due process jurisprudence has nothing to do with his moral view of contraception, sodomy, or marriage. Rather, he is making an argument about the constitutional basis—or lack thereof—of substantive due process doctrine, which Justice Antonin Scalia too criticized:

The entire practice of using the Due Process Clause to add judicially favored rights to the limitations upon democracy set forth in the Bill of Rights (usually under the rubric of so-called “substantive due process”) is in my view judicial usurpation.

Justice Hugo Black was similarly critical of substantive due process doctrine in Griswold:

[T]here is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court’s belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up and at the same time threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have.

Leftists mock Thomas for his substantive critique of substantive due process mischief. They do so because they fear losing the power of the Court to act as a supreme law-making body. Well, they did fear that while they controlled the Court.

But Thomas’ critique is not a fringe critique, and he may have at least one ally on the Court: Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Now, the arduous work of changing hearts and minds that have been corrupted by nearly fifty years of leftist propaganda becomes even more urgent.

We need to donate more money to crisis pregnancy centers, both to help mothers who are considering abortion and to repair damage from domestic terrorists like Jane’s Revenge that promises violence to organizations that seek to protect children in their mothers’ wombs.

We need to pour money into creative, compelling public service/social media campaigns and the arts in order to elicit support for protecting preborn babies.

We need to elect wise, courageous state leaders who stand boldly for the sanctity of lives that pro-abortion activists deem unworthy of life.

We need to pass fiscal and social policies that end—rather than create—poverty, and we need to create a culture that doesn’t think a solution to poverty is baby sacrifice.

And we need to educate our children in places that teach that humans in their mothers’ wombs are sacred and that neither their developmental status, nor their convenience for others, nor their imperfections grant to their mothers the moral right to have them killed.

And we need to pray ceaselessly for the least of these. We must pray that incipient human lives are able to survive the dangerous waters of their mothers’ wombs.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/The-Nightmare-of-Roe-Ends.mp3

Written by Lathan Watts

When those entrusted with power to protect the God given rights of the people do so selectively, arbitrarily picking and choosing which freedoms are worthy of protection and to what extent, then we are no longer a nation governed by the rule of law but by the whims of men.

President Abraham Lincoln once observed,

“Nearly all men can stand the test of adversity, but if you really want to test a man’s character give him power.”

America now faces of a convergence of calamities unlike any our nation has dealt with in nearly a century. Amidst the confusion, what has become clear is the character of those in power is being tested and some are found as lacking in character as in their understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

From the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic we heard government officials at every level repeat some version of the mantra “the first priority of government is protecting the health and safety of the citizens.” The first priority, in fact the justification for the existence of government, is to protect the God-given rights of the people.

For example, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy when asked by Fox News host Tucker Carlson how he could justify the arrest of 15 men attending the funeral of a Rabbi replied,

“That’s above my paygrade Tucker, I wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this…”

Of course, government is charged with protecting the health and safety of the citizens but it must be done, as all government action, within the parameters of the Constitution. First Liberty Institute and our volunteer attorney network have taken elected officials to court all over the country to hold them to this standard.

What has also become clear is how some in government and the media are willing to demand constitutional protections be enforced or abandoned depending on the subject matter. When business owners peacefully assembled to protest against the government imposed lockdown they were called everything from “selfish” to “domestic terrorists” and accused of valuing money over the lives of others.

When protests over the death of George Floyd broke out in cities across the country, no such concern over public health could be heard. It was exactly the opposite response. Over 1000 public health professionals signed on to a letter specifically calling for governments not to use concern over the spread of COVID 19 to stop protest marches and other demonstrations:

“However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from demonstrators’ ability to gather and demand change. This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders.” (emphasis added)

The last sentence of that letter means either the virus can distinguish between protestors based on the issue they’re protesting or these public health officials care more about virtue signaling and adherence to political ideology than the public health.

Any American with a modicum of morality and respect for justice in a civil society was appalled at what happened to George Floyd. That same sense of morality and respect for justice is what causes many to recoil at the sight of violent arsonists and thieves masquerading as protestors attempting to cloak their crimes in lawful activity.

Yet CNN anchor Chris Cuomo saw no conflict between the two,

“Now too many see the protests as the problem. No, the problem is what forced your fellow citizens to take to the streets: persistent, poisonous inequities and injustice, and please, show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful…”

One hopes someone showed him the text of the First Amendment which protects the “right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The beauty of the First Amendment is in its protection of all religion, speech, press, peaceful assemblies equally, without any regard to the popularity of the ideas. If our republic is to survive we must hold ourselves and those we entrust with power to the same principled standard.

This article was originally published at FirstLiberty.org.

Written by Jeremy Dys
Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications, First Liberty

We did not suddenly arrive to the moment where riot police arrest CNN journalists. Though the issues may be complex, recent history suggests that the suppression of civil rights—even for a pandemic—leads inexorably to the abuse of other core freedoms by the government.

Until recently, several states—including Minnesota—declared that it was unlawful to engage in the free exercise of religion in groups of ten or more. When churches dared pursue legal recourse to correct that issue, politicians, pundits and journalists offered criticism.

As one of the attorneys on the receiving end of that criticism on more than one occasion, it left me perplexed. “What’s the big deal?” they might say, “Why can’t churches just worship online?!

The answer should be obvious to any with a passing appreciation for the First Amendment. Our U.S. Constitution guarantees the “free exercise of religion” and the “right of the people peaceably to assemble.” In other words, those with a divine mandate to meet together in worship—regardless of the religion in which they participate—should not require the permission of the state to do so, nor may those rights be treated as lesser rights to visiting retail, restaurants or hardware stores. There is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution.

Because we have (for now) survived the political left’s vision for the lesser “freedom to worship,” we ought to appreciate the free exercise of religion all the more. State officials are not immune from brutal and corrupt behavior. Indeed, the very reason we have a First Amendment is to guard against the natural aggression of power toward that which challenges a state’s authority.

The last three months reveal that too many state and local officials often resist that limitation on their power. The truth serum embedded in the coronavirus appears to be that it reveals the lust for power dormant in many public officials. They believe it within their power to, like a light switch, turn civil rights on or off as they see fit.

If that is the view of some state officials, as we have seen in New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and others, then there can be no surprise whatsoever that other state officials would place journalists—also unequivocally protected by the First Amendment—under arrest.

Of course, this fundamentally disagrees with the central message of our Bill of Rights: The rights articulated therein belong to, and remain with, the people by virtue of their humanity. The limited rights of government—what the people empower government to do—are articulated in the body of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights make plain what the people refused to permit the government to govern. Together, this works to restrain government and ensure freedom.

If you have been inclined to roll your eyes over citizens insisting upon their religious liberty just to sit in a car at a drive-in church service, remember that part of what they seek to prevent is what we now see in the detention of four CNN journalists. Religious people, lately held in contempt by some for simply wishing to exercise their religion at a safe social distance, are actually doing their part to preserve everyone’s freedom.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey should understand this by now. When the threat of litigation by the Roman Catholic Church and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod forced Governor Tim Walz to recognize that churches could safely meet in-person at a bare 25 percent capacity, Mayor Frey declared the idea to be, “a recipe in Minneapolis for a public health disaster.” Frey went on to suggest to CNN that religious people may be less capable of social distancing than shoppers at the Mall of America. They should stay in their virtual worship services, you see, for their own good lest these religious people infect us all.

Four days later and Mayor Frey’s office is handing out free face masks to those engaged in a form of free speech (and worse)—in groups quite larger than ten—while the police take members of the free press into custody.

Being “all in this together” means that, whether we agree or disagree, we each do our part to insist that our civil rights are secured—even in the midst of a pandemic or panic. Without that commitment, the erosion of our civil rights—and our very freedom—is where it leads.

This article was originally published online on Newsweek on June 1, 2020.

Cites Illinois Governor Executive Order as Constitutionally Unenforceable

A suit to enjoin the Grundy County State’s Attorney and Sheriff from enforcing Governor JB Pritzker’s worship restrictions has been filed by a local church. The continuing worship restrictions are contained in Pritzker’s Executive Order 2020-32.  The new “guidance” issued May 28 by the Illinois Department of Public Health provided “direction” for safely conducting services. The guidance however did not overturn the limitations contained in the executive order of April 30, 2020.  While EO 2020-32 remains in place, all houses of worship remain in legal jeopardy.

Pastor Richard Gionvennatti, of Standing in the Word Ministries, is seeking court protection to ensure that all citizens’ constitutional rights are affirmed without question and that religious liberties are not ever again infringed by egregious government overreach.

The seven-count lawsuit filed on Thursday, May 28, indicates Illinois Governor Pritzker was acting without legal authority in issuing any Corona Virus Executive Orders beyond 30 days without legislative approval and defied the U.S. Constitution, the Illinois State Constitution, and state statutes.

The pastor and congregation are represented by Attorney David Shestokas. He stated, “The Bill of Rights has no emergency exceptions. Although the governor has issued orders, the constitutionally independent Sheriffs and State’s Attorneys are tasked with enforcement. Court injunctions against enforcing Pritzker’s illegal orders are an appropriate remedy in protecting our freedoms.”

Pastor Giovennatti’s lawsuit seeks to permanently prohibit the sheriff and state’s attorney from enforcing the unlawful Executive Orders and any subsequent order issued with substantively the same restrictions upon the constitutional rights of Free Exercise of religious worship, Free Speech, and Freedom to Assemble.

As a board member of the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) and a pastor, Gionvennatti is passionate representing living within the Constitution. “The church is the source of holding the nation accountable. Churches need to assemble. As our nation’s heart and soul, we must and will be diligent and vigilantly stay the course until freedoms are restored and the unconstitutional edict is eradicated,” he said.

The statewide IFI and its Executive Director David E. Smith, vigorously support the efforts and strategy of the lawsuit. “We would like to secure a judicial ruling striking down this tyrannical precedent so that the state of Illinois may never have to experience this again. It doesn’t take much foresight to realize how similar future orders could be mandated (and extended) in the name of safety,” Mr. Smith said.

For full text of Complaint:

Standing in the Word v. State’s Attorney and Sheriff  2020CH23

Written by Jim Davids, Esq.

On March 16, 2020, Governor JB Pritzker signed Executive Order 2020-07 that states in part,

Beginning March 18, 2020, all public and private gatherings in the State of Illinois of 50 people or more are prohibited for the duration of the Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamation. A public or private gathering includes community, civic, public leisure, faith-based events, sporting events with spectators, concerts, conventions, and any similar event or activity that brings together 50 or more people in a single room or a single space at the same time. This includes venues such as fitness centers/health clubs, bowling alleys, private clubs, and theatres. This does not include venues that provide essential goods or services such as grocery stores, hospitals, pharmacies, gas stations, banks/credit unions, and shelters.

Since many, if not most, of the churches in our State have more than 50 people in the worship center, we have pursued alternatives, such as moving worship online. This actually has brought the Gospel to a much broader audience, with many pastors reporting that more people are watching their services online than at their average Sunday service. But, not every church member has a computer or internet access, and there is no equal to personal warmth and caring when done in person.

As U.S. Attorney General William Barr observed recently, this pandemic does not nullify the Bill of Rights, including America’s first freedom to exercise religious faith. All government officials – federal, state and local – must respect and protect the constitutionally protected freedom of Americans to worship according to their own beliefs.  Gov. Pritzker’s Executive Order 2020-07 obviously hinders Illinois residents in their exercise of religion, as well as in their right to peacefully assemble.

This deprivation of religious rights is effectuated by the Governor’s decision not to recognize religious services as “essential.” People congregating in some stores is okay, according to the Governor, but not in church.  This has undoubtedly resulted in many churches seeing a reduction in tithes and offerings.  The Governor is not treating all secular gatherings and religious gatherings the same, based on his opinion of what is “essential.”

The Bible is clear that we should respect and obey government leaders (Rom. 13; 1 Peter 2:13-17; Titus 3:1). At the same time, Paul and other Christians availed themselves of their rights as citizens and used the judicial systems of their day to appeal unjust rulings (e.g., Acts 25).  In our system of government, Gov. Pritzker’s Executive Orders are subject to review by judges who may find them unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to law.

If the Governor’s Order prohibiting gatherings of more than 50 people in a room, or his subsequent “stay at home” order, has resulted in

• Members of your church being unable to worship;
• Typical events like funerals, marriages, baptisms being unable to proceed; or
• Substantial financial losses due to decline in donations‍

and if you sincerely believe that restarting in-person church meetings is essential to your church’s ministry, we would like to talk to you about filing a law suit on your behalf. The phone call would be free, and, if our lawyers decide to take your case, you will not be charged for their services on your behalf. Please contact us to talk about your situation:

Justice & Freedom Law Center (JFLC)
(630) 333-9595
contactus@jflc.us

Finally, let us end this with a little encouragement. During times of crisis, like the present one, people realize their weakness, their vulnerable health, and their need for a Savior. Remain vigilant in declaring the truth of Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection.

Use also this opportunity to show the love of Christ in tangible ways. Consider delivering food to the elderly in your churches, or expanding your food pantry. You can also consider using your church as a temporary day care for healthcare workers or first responders.

Be of good cheer. Remember that God is in control, and perhaps this pandemic is His means of creating a revival in our State and country.

Jim Davids is a native Chicagoan who, after graduating from Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI and Duke University School of Law in Durham, NC, returned to Chicago to begin practicing law. At church on a Sunday night in 1977 he met Sue, and after a two-year courtship they married. They raised four children in Chicago, and now have 12 grandchildren. (Read more here…)