Are today’s journalists and news outlets doing their jobs well? According to  journalists themselves, yes. According to the public, no.

A recent survey from the Pew Research Group highlighted the significant disconnect between those who write the news and the rest of us who read them. One of the most interesting findings of the survey was the relative satisfaction of journalists within their industry versus the relative dissatisfaction of those who consume their work. Sixty-five percent of journalists said they believe that news outlets “report the news accurately,” while a mere 22 percent of the public expressed satisfaction with the accuracy of news reporting.

Pew’s survey also queried journalists about their concerns for the future of press freedom. While 42 percent of journalists age 65 and up said they were “extremely concerned” about the trajectory of press freedom in the industry, a scant 20 percent of journalists age 18-29 registered the same level of concern. In other words, the unabashed censorship, the sloppy reporting, and the revisionist history that plagues our nation’s news outlets hardly concerns the next generation of journalists and reporters.

Despite the apparent disconnect between journalists’ perception of their own industry and the American public’s perception of the same, the survey revealed one interesting point on which the two perspectives were more closely aligned: how much the American public trusts their news outlets. Journalists estimated that 14 percent of the American public “has a great deal of trust in the information they get from news sources.” Similarly, only 29 percent of U.S. adults (non-journalists) said that they trust the information they get from news sources.

It’s apparent there is a crisis in journalism and the news industry, but what is causing it? One possible answer is that the American public has clearly seen through the thin veneer of respectability that once accompanied the news industry. The United States has a rich journalistic tradition: the 1st Amendment has accorded the free press an incredible degree of influence over the politics, culture, and trajectory of American society, and for many decades in our history, the press stewarded that privilege with dignity and wisdom. But the brakes have seemingly come off of journalism—there seems to be no limit to the degeneracy that the U.S.’s thought-leaders will publish and promote.  The average American citizen likely isn’t on board with drag shows for kids, for instance, so when their once-trusted news outlets begin to celebrate the depths of human depravity, they (wisely) look to alternative news sources.

One obvious example of this is the decline of CNN. Once a respected staple of American news reporting, CNN’s ratings are now at a seven-year low. Anderson Cooper, a face long associated with CNN, only averages a paltry 600,000 viewers during the 8:00 p.m. time slot; Tucker Carlson averages an astounding 3 million viewers on Fox News.

Doubtless, another cause of journalism’s crisis in public perception is the changing landscape faced by the industry. No longer are people only consuming news curated by large news outlets (New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Fox News). More and more, people are turning to non-traditional sources for their news. Especially for younger generations, podcasts, online blogs, Substack newsletters, and small independent news outlets have become the primary means of keeping up with current events. And for good reason—smaller news sources are less directly affected by public and government pressure and are often willing to report on unpopular (some would say intolerant or hateful) issues.

The dissemination of news via smaller outlets is a wonderful advantage—especially for Christians. No longer do Christians and conservatives need to rely on dishonest long-time news sources to stay informed about current events. Everyone is able to curate their own newsfeed so they can hear from fair, balanced sources without the fear of being ambushed by the woke nonsense we’ve grown accustomed to from mainstream news outlets.

Of course, this poses a challenge as well. How do we go about evaluating the sources we regularly read and listen to? Fortunately, there’s an easy answer to that question: every Christian has a responsibility to evaluate the information they take in by the unchanging standard of God’s Word. This is, of course, difficult at times, which is why it is of the utmost necessity that each and every one  of us finds a community of believers that shapes our worldview only according to God’s Word.

I guess Fox News hasn’t learned any lessons from CNN’s self-inflicted wounds and rapid descent into ratings hell, the chief interrelated lessons of which are 1. don’t promote lies as truth, and 2. don’t promote evil as good. Fox News just did both and created a firestorm of anger among its faithful viewers. Last week, Fox News (channeling CNN) aired a segment about an ignorant mother and father in California who are raising their now fourteen-year-old daughter as a boy.

Dana Perino introduced the story that was narrated by Brian Llenas.

The story begins with the deceitful claim that Brian Llenas’ story about Ryland Whittington’s “transitioning journey is helping other families.” Chemically stopping natural, health puberty and then inducing puberty natural to children of the opposite sex is not “helping” other families, no matter how deeply Whittington’s parents, Hillary and Jeff, “feel” it is.

Then Llenas goes off the deep end, asserting that Ryland is a “typical Southern California teenager.” While to Midwesterners, California seems to be a place where an inordinate number of people engage in unnatural body modification, the country is not yet at a point where cross-sex bodily mutilation among children is typical.

Llenas in cahoots with Ryland’s publicity-loving parents then tests the gullibility of viewers by claiming that “somehow before Ryland could even speak, he [sic] managed to tell his [sic] parents that he [sic] is a boy.”

According to her parents, while Ryland was still in a non-verbal stage of life, she told them that she is a boy via her resistance to wearing feminine clothes. Credulous viewers are expected to believe that a non-verbal toddler already knows which clothes are feminine and which are masculine.

Children typically start speaking between 12-15 months. They are forming simple sentences by about age 18 months. So, we are expected to believe that sometime before 12-18 months, Ryland knew she was a boy. Further, Ryland’s parents would have us believe, her toddler resistance to wearing feminine clothing styles is proof positive that Ryland’s brain is male while her body is female. We are also expected to believe that Ryland’s certainty during her toddlerhood that she is a boy would have persisted.

Relevant fact: Before the advent of the “Trans” Age, the percentage of young children who suffered from gender dysphoria was exceedingly small and most were boys. Studies have shown that unless children are affirmed socially and chemically in their corporeal masquerade, upwards of 80% will eventually accept their biological sex.

So, the question is, how did Ryland’s parents know the feelings of their five-year-old daughter would never change. Moreover, should a persistent delusion always (or ever) be affirmed? What about children who persist in their identification as amputees (Body Integrity Identity Disorder)? Should they be affirmed, aided, and abetted in their quest for an elective limb amputation?

Llenas admiringly reports, “when Ryland came out at age five. … he [sic] had the full support of his [sic] parents.”

Llenas omitted from his sanguine tale that Ryland was born deaf and had surgery at age one to implant cochlear implants, which have enabled her to hear and speak. It’s interesting that Ryland’s parents would have surgery to restore normal functioning to her ears, while using chemicals (and perhaps at some point surgery) to disrupt the normal functioning of Ryland’s sexual anatomy.

Llenas oddly attributes Hillary Whittington’s support for “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices to her “conservative Christian” faith. Hillary explained:

For me, it’s just a deep spiritual belief that you believe in God. And he … created us the way he wanted us. Well then, yes, he created Ryland just the way he is.

God creates us. He does not create birth defects, disease, confusion, sinful desires, obsessive thoughts, or mental illnesses. We are born into a fallen world and the world’s fallenness affects our minds (thoughts), bodies, hearts (desires), and wills. Did her conservative Christian church not teach her about the fall?

Jeff also cited statistics from the far leftist Trevor Project on “transgender” self-harm as a reason for their support. But Trevor Project statistics have been widely criticized, as have been many studies purporting to prove that not only are “trans”-identifying youth more like to commit suicide, but also that the cause is societal disapproval. Somehow most of our intrepid reporters, in the news media—including Brian Llenas—haven’t been able to find such criticism.

Just this past Monday, the Heritage Foundation, published a study on suicide among young people that upends the narrative leftists use to terrorize parents into collaborating with the “trans”-industrial complex in harming children:

The Heritage study released Monday found that 2020 saw 1.6 more suicides per 100,000 residents ages 12 to 23 in states that allow minors access to puberty blockers and other gender-reassignment procedures without parental consent.

That represents a 14 percent increase in suicides.

A 2011 study found another troubling trend:

Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.

Nor have our intrepid and objective journalists managed to dig up exactly how many and who in our esteemed medical and mental health organizations come up with their “trans”-affirming positions. Let’s just say, it’s a small number of handpicked, biased members who create policy positions that the rest of the members do not vote on. As I have twice written, only about 30 members of the American Academy of Pediatrics—all leftists—created its pro-“transition” position. No minority report, no votes of all members taken.

Within a year of five-year-old Ryland’s “coming out,” her parents made a video and Ryland became an Internet sensation by the time she turned six. Exploiting their own children’s gender dysphoria has become a cottage industry.

Dyson, the princess boy.

There’s the mom, Cheryl Kilodavis, who wrote the book My Princess Boy about her then five-year-old son Dyson who masquerades as a girl. She trotted him out on a talk show in a purple tutu where he, visibly uncomfortable,” twirled at the urging of Meredith Viera. Dyson is now 16 and identifies as homosexual.

Then there’s Desmond is Amazing and Lactatia, two little boys whose mothers introduced them to drag, facilitated the creation of drag personas, and then made bank on parading them around dressed in drag.

And who can forget Jazz Jennings (born Jarod Seth Bloshinsky), the now 21-year-old obese eunuch, who pretends to be a woman and whose parasitic parents have profited from his suffering on the TLC show I Am Jazz.

The foolish, narrowminded sycophant Llenas concludes his rhapsodic segment by thanking Ryland and his family for their “extraordinary courage” in sharing Ryland’s story. Yet another lie. It takes virtually no courage for this family to share their story, which they’ve shared for almost a decade in a viral video, book, legislative hearings, and interviews for the Human Rights Campaign.

Llenas repeats the tired trope that “people are often afraid of what they do not understand,” implying that ontological and moral assumptions that are different from those of the “trans”-cult are born of fear. Has he spent anytime asking counselors, physicians, pastors, and detransitioners who disagree with the “trans”-cult if their beliefs are born of fear?

The controversy this story generated is well-deserved. On the “trans” (and homosexuality) issue, Fox News has segued into advocacy for lies and evil that are harming children, families, religious liberty, and speech rights.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Fox News Channel to let them know how disappointed you are that they are caving into a radical child abuse agenda. Urge them to stop contributing to the “trans” contagion, and ask them to stop lying to us by using incorrect pronouns. This left-wing social agenda is antithetical to science and will alienate both their conservative Judeo-Christian viewers as well as many on the left who oppose what is being done to children.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/FNC-Airs-Story-that-Celebrates-Trans-Cultic-Experimentation-on-Children.mp3

The Biden administration calls it the “Disinformation Governance Board” (DGB—word on the streets is that it was going to be named the “Knowledge Governance Board,” but “KGB” was already taken).

The rest of America calls it the Ministry of Truth, a title derived from George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984.

In a rollout almost as wildly inept as Biden’s exit from Afghanistan, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced its new effort to combat “disinformation.” After the past decade of Democrats spreading misinformation and disinformation, aided and abetted by leftist collaborators at the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC, conservatives are justifiably wary about the DGB.

While leftists have sent to their memory hole the mis- and dis- information they spread like manure all across the fruited plains, conservative Americans have not forgotten it.

Conservatives remember the mis- and dis- excrement leftists spread about the cause of the Benghazi attacks, Trumps alleged collusion with Russia (including Adam Schiff’s bald-faced lies), the lurid tall tale about urinating Russian prostitutes, Hunter Biden’s laptop, the origins of the Wuhan virus, and the efficacy of masks. No conservative in American believes this is the kind of misinformation or disinformation targeted by any agency under a Democrat administration.

Leftists in America’s power centers have a habit of spreading lies that they know are lies about conservatives. Leftists in America’s power centers have a habit of deeming stories critical of leftists “misinformation” or “disinformation” without doing any research to confirm their premature conclusions. And leftists in America’s power centers have a habit of justifying their refusal to report stories favorable to conservatives by deeming them misinformation or disinformation.

The timing of this announcement compounds conservative suspicions. The announcement came just before mid-term elections, just after the Biden administration announced it will be stopping Title 42 border expulsions, and just after Elon Musk purchased Twitter, vowing to make it a free speech platform.

Musk raised the hope that there will be no more algorithmic shenanigans that many believe were used by leftist-controlled social media platforms to throw the election to a senile recluse who refused to campaign and yet won by an alleged landslide.

And at the very moment that conservative hopes for the same kind of freedom leftists enjoy were raised, the DGB was born.

If the birth of the DGB weren’t bad enough, just take a look at the unprincipled, flakey head of the DGB: Nina Jankowicz who belts out obscene show tunes like a Broadway wannabe.

U.S. Senator Ron Johnson sent a letter to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas expressing concerns about both the Jankowicz and the DGB that many Americans share:

Ms. Jankowicz herself has been a beacon of misinformation online.  She has published multiple tweets furthering the false media narrative about the Hunter Biden laptop. In one tweet she wrote, “IC has a high degree of confidence that the Kremlin used proxies to push influence narratives, including misleading or unsubstantiated claims about President Biden, to US media, officials, and influencers, some close to President Trump. A clear nod to the alleged Hunter laptop.” In another, she referred to the origins of how the media came into possession of the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop as a “fairy tale about a laptop repair shop.” She has also posted tweets pushing the Trump-Russia collusion hoax and another implying the United States is as corrupt as Ukraine.

Now, DHS is creating a board to counter misinformation focusing on irregular migration and Russia and appointing a purveyor of misinformation to lead that effort. DHS is taking this action just weeks after announcing its plans to stop Title 42 expulsions at the southwest border, which has sparked a surge of illegal migrant crossing at the border, with CBP reporting an average of over 7,000 encounters a day in March 2022 compared with over 5,900 a day in February 2022. DHS even concedes it needs to be prepared to encounter 18,000 migrants a day at the southwest border once Title 42 is lifted.

You claim this Administration’s border policies are humane, but the crises caused by your policies have only added to the many tragedies caused by illegal immigration. I am concerned DHS’s Disinformation Board will only serve to silence or censor those voices critical of your disastrous policies and serve a political cover for your failure to secure the border.

Ironically, Jankowicz was against government oversight of speech  before she was for it:

Imagine that, you know, with President Trump right now calling all of these news organizations that have inconvenient for him stories that … they’re getting out there that he’s calling fake news, and now lashing out at platforms. I would never want to see our executive branch have that sort of power.

Here’s a revolutionary idea for the powerbrokers who want to run other people’s lives: How about finding a principle and then screwing it to a sticking place—like maybe your spine.

Just as leftists have defined conservative moral and ontological claims about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation “hate speech,” so they can ban it, leftists in the Department of Homeland Security will define news stories they hate “misinformation” and “disinformation,” so they can do likewise.

There is one bit of good news peeking out from behind the cloud of oppression that has issued from the penumbras formed by gaseous emanations expelled from the Biden administration. We have learned that the Biden administration has mastered the art of losing an election: Raise gas prices, raise food prices, make America oil-dependent again, make the world a more dangerous place, judge people by the color of their skin and their genitalia, open wide our Southern border, tell parents the government owns their children, and then tell Americans that a powerful, unaccountable government bureaucracy is going to decide which ideas and opinions constitute “misinformation.”

Yep, that should tap the last nail in Joe’s metaphorical coffin. Rational, liberty-loving voters of every color don’t want the government deciding what their children should be taught, which laws can be broken, or whose speech can be banned.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Biden-Administrations-Even-Harder-Fascistic-Turn.mp3

I am not an anti-vaxxer, and plenty of my friends and colleagues have been vaccinated. And, from the perspective of those who believe that the COVID-19 vaccinations are safe and effective and even life-saving, I can understand the desire to see everyone vaccinated. But what I cannot possibly understand is the threatening, vindictive, heavy-handed bullying in conjunction with the mandates. Not only are these unfair and even cruel, but they give fuel to the fire of those who view the mandates as nothing less than dangerous governmental overreach.

Consider this October 18 story on The Hill which states that, “Chicago police officers could face repercussions, including losing retirement benefits, if they choose to not comply with the city’s vaccine mandate, according to a memo from the Chicago Police Department.

“The memo states that anyone who chooses to disobey the city’s vaccination policy will become the subject of a disciplinary investigation that could result in a penalty up to and including separation from the Chicago Police Department,’ according to CNN.

“‘Furthermore, sworn members who retire while under disciplinary investigations may be denied retirement credentials,’ it continues.”

How can this possibly be justified?

We’re talking about people who, in good conscience, will not be vaccinated, be it for medical reasons or religious reasons or something else (including having natural immunity after having COVID). They are even willing to lose their jobs rather than get vaccinated.

But, as if that was not bad enough, according to this report, the city of Chicago may actually strip away their retirement benefits. Is this anything less than outrageous?

A few weeks ago on my radio broadcast, a caller asked for counsel regarding the vaccine. He had served in the military for years but had serious reservations about getting vaccinated. Yet, if he chose not to get vaccinated, not only would he be dismissed, but, he explained, he would lose all the military benefits he had accrued over the years.

I was shocked to hear this, searching online for confirmation after the show (although the caller seemed quite sure that this was the case).

Although there are varied reports circulating online, early last month, U.S. House legislators openly challenged the announcement that those who refused vaccination would receive a dishonorable discharge. (For the record, and as noted on a military transition website, “A Dishonorable Discharge is the harshest discharge status a military service member can receive, as it is given via court-martial and not by military administration. Service members who receive this standing are accused of felonies involving homicide, fraud, desertion, and crimes that would put any person, service member or not, in hot water. If you receive a Dishonorable Discharge, it is not possible to reenlist with the military.”)

But was this charge true? Were military members being threatened with a dishonorable discharge? Some fact-checkers have said plainly that this is not correct and that the Biden administration does not have the authority to do this.

Yet this does beg the question of why the Military.com website reported on September 2 that, “House lawmakers have backed legislation prohibiting dishonorable discharges for troops who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine.” It also begs the question of how and why news outlets were reporting this very thing. Was it manufactured out of thin air?

Even if this was being reported erroneously and dishonorable discharges were never being considered, we do know that on October 15, it was reported that, “The US Navy said Thursday that personnel who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19 will be expelled from the force, ahead of the November 28 deadline for the injection.”

And this: “People expelled for refusing the vaccine will receive a general honorable discharge, but could lose certain benefits or be forced to repay the cost of training and education in some cases, the statement said.”

Note carefully those words: “lose certain benefits.” And all because, in good conscience, they will not be vaccinated. How can this be justified?

The article also stated that, “Navy personnel who can claim an exemption from mandatory vaccines, for health or other reasons, can be reassigned from their current duties.”

And, it explained, “The navy has been particularly sensitive to the pandemic, because of the risk that a single COVID case could infect an entire ship or submarine at sea, forcing it out of action.”

But what about natural immunity for all those who have had COVID? Since this is far more effective than a vaccine, why must those people be vaccinated? As reported on Medical News Today, a major study from Israel “indicated that people who had never had the infection and received a vaccine in January or February of 2021 were up to 13 times more likely to contract the virus than people who had already had the infection.”

Yet these people face the choice of vaccination or else – and that “or else” is quite ominous. How can this be justified?

When it comes to those serving in the military, we’re talking about people who, for the most part, are in one of the lowest demographics for Covid fatalities. And we’re talking about people who have chosen to serve in the military, some for many years of their lives. And in some cases, we’re talking about people who have risked their lives and disrupted their families and perhaps even been wounded in the field of duty.

Yet, if for reasons that are valid in their eyes, they cannot receive the vaccination, not only do they lose their current jobs. Not only do they lose their military career trajectories (where that applies). But they also lose all the benefits they have accrued over the years.

What an outrage, especially when you consider that it is for those very benefits, such as college tuition aid, that some of them enrolled in the first place.

Again, I am not an anti-vaxxer. And, as much as I very strongly differ with the vaccine mandates, I can understand some of the thinking behind the mandates. But these vindictive and punitive measures are outrageous and completely unjustifiable. In the end, they will do more harm than good, hurting lives more than saving lives while increasing our general mistrust of authority.

May those in government (along with others enforcing these mandates) think long and hard. There is still time to reconsider, retract, and reverse course. That would be the honorable thing to do.

This article was originally published by AskDr.Brown.org.

For those who have been enjoying the waning days of summer away from news and social media, basking maskless by a refreshing body of water or hiking in a cool forest with a face as naked as a newborn babe’s, here’s what set ablaze the perpetually burning neurons of leftists: Texas banned all abortions performed on small humans whose hearts are beating and made anyone who facilitates the illegal killing of humans with beating hearts open to litigation. Sounds reasonable to me, but then again, I’ve never been a fan of killing defenseless humans who have committed no crime.

Following Texas’ prohibition of human slaughter after the first six weeks of life, the left lost what’s left of their minds.

With their feticidal minds unhinged at the prospect of mothers not being free to hire hitmen who identify as “physicians” to off their offspring, leftists proved again why they’re not known for skill in the use of evidence, sound analogical thinking, respect for science, respect for human rights, coherence, consistency, or morality.

Let’s take a cursory look at the darn things cultural regressives are muttering, sputtering, and tweeting:

Joe Biden, the self-identifying Catholic who claims his “avocation” is theology, recently said,

I respect people who … don’t support Roe v. Wade. I respect their views. I respect … those who believe life begins at the moment of conception and all. I respect that. Don’t agree, but I respect that.

But wait, in 2015 Biden said,

I’m prepared to accept that at the moment of conception there’s human life and being, but I’m not prepared to say that to other God-fearing, non-God-fearing people that have a different view.

So, which is it? Does he believe that at the moment of conception a new human life comes into existence or does he not? If not, what new science convinced him between age 72 and 78 that the union of human egg and sperm no longer marks the beginning of the life of a new human being?

(As an aside, why can’t leftists who claim to believe that women can be born in men’s bodies and that men can menstruate and give birth be like Biden and respect the views of God-fearing and non-God-fearing people who disagree?)

Disgraceful CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, brother of disgraced former governor of New York Andrew Cuomo, tried to suggest that 6-week-old human fetuses don’t have heartbeats because they don’t have hearts. The Mayo Clinic dares to dissent:

Growth is rapid this week [sixth week]. Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby’s back is closing. The baby’s brain and spinal cord will develop from the neural tube. The heart and other organs also are starting to form and the heart begins to beat.

Please note, the Mayo Clinic refers to the baby as a “baby.”

CNN’s Joy Reid fretted that the Texas law signals the Handmaid’s Tale is coming to America—you know, the story of fertile breeding women being forced to have sex with ruling elite men while their wives watch. Reid’s guest, failed presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, nodding in agreement, fretted about the law’s impact on the “most vulnerable among us”:

This law is about bearing down on the most vulnerable among us. It’s bearing down on the woman, or the transperson, or the nonbinary who’s workin’ three jobs.

Warren views pregnant “transpersons” who are workin’ three jobs as more vulnerable than the babies whom they seek to kill.

Bette Midler tweeted,

I suggest that all women refuse to have sex with men until they are guaranteed the right to choose by Congress.

Midler forgot to specify the direct object of the transitive verb “choose.” To be clear, she means the right to choose to have incipient human life killed.

I completely agree with Midler that if a woman plans to chemically starve her baby fetus or have her fetus dismembered as her back-up contraception plan, it’s best she not have sex.

Millionaire leftist co-founders of the ridesharing company Lyft, Logan Green and John Zimmer, have gone all out in support of killing tiny humans:

Lyft is donating $1 million to Planned Parenthood to help ensure that transportation is never a barrier to healthcare access.

Killing humans is not “healthcare” no matter how many times leftists use this Newspeakian euphemism. Anyone who cares about the health of womb-dwellers ought not use Lyft.

And any leftist who believes that practices that have a “disparate impact” on persons of color are racist practices should know that black babies are killed in utero at much higher rates than are white babies:

Black women have been experiencing induced abortions at a rate nearly 4 times that of White women for at least 3 decades, and likely much longer. … In the current unfolding environment, there may be no better metric for the value of Black lives.

The millions of dollars donated by racists Green and Zimmer are going to facilitate the racist practices of Planned Parenthood.

The ever-snippy White House spokesperson Jen Psaki scolded a reporter for asking about how Biden reconciles his Catholic faith with his support for human slaughter. Psaki’s retort was revelatory in that it demonstrated how un-woke she is.

Without even asking for the reporter’s pronouns, Psaki just assumed the reporter was a man, presumably because he looks like a man and sounds like a man. Psaki asserted presumptuously that the reporter has never been pregnant. How does she know? Doesn’t Psaki know that in the woke playbook, some women have men’s bodies, and some men have women’s bodies and can get pregnant? I guess Psaki is an intolerant, hateful, ignorant bigot.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin claimed that the refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to block the Texas law constitutes “a real blow against the U.S. Supreme Court’s institutional reputation.”  It’s strange to hear Toobin, who pleasured himself on a work Zoom call, express concern over “reputation.” But then again, Toobin has a vested interest in keeping abortion legal: He pressured a former paramour with whom he had had an extramarital affair to abort their now 12-year-old son. Toobin may be planning for his future “needs.”

Toobin also described Roe v. Wade as the “second most famous opinion of the last 100 years.” He should have said “most infamous opinion of the last 150 years.” Here’s what liberal legal scholars and pundits have said about the infamous Roe v. Wade opinion:

• “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” (Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School professor)

• “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible.” (Edward Lazarus, former clerk to SCOTUS Justice Harry Blackmun)

• “Blackmun’s [U.S. Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.” (William Saletan, Slate magazine writer)

• Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” (John Hart Ely, former law professor at Yale, Harvard, and Stanford universities)

• “[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision—the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution—strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous.” (Richard Cohen, Washington Post columnist)

• “[T]he finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself.” (Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University Law School professor)

• “Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching.” (Michael Kinsley, attorney, political journalist).

• As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether” (Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania Law School professor)

• “Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.” (Archibald Cox, JFK’s Solicitor General, former Harvard Law School professor)

One law professor who has no need of constitutional grounding for abortion is UC Irvine law professor and cheerleader for legalized human slaughter, Michele Goodwin. Goodwin is a long-time and influential advocate of the legal right to kill the preborn. She and co-author Erwin Chemerinsky set forth their goals in a 2017 paper titled, “Abortion: a Woman’s Private Choice”:

We begin by justifying the protection of rights not found in the text of the Constitution. … Foremost among these rights is control over one’s body and over one’s reproduction. … Finally in Part III we discuss what it would mean for abortion to be regarded as a private choice. In this Part, we identify three implications: a) restoring strict scrutiny to examining laws regulating abortions, which would mean that the government must be neutral between childbirth and abortion; b) preventing the government from denying funding for abortions when it pays for childbirth; and c) invalidating the countless types of restrictions on abortion. (emphasis added)

Goodwin rightly condemns the “notorious eugenics period in the United States,” in which allegedly defective preborn babies were forcibly killed by the government. Goodwin fails, however, to acknowledge the difference between the government mandating that a doctor perform a surgical procedure on the body of a woman without her consent and the government prohibiting a doctor from dismembering or in other ways destroying the body of a human fetus without his or her consent.

Goodwin also believes the Texas bill to preserve human life is analogous to the Fugitive Slave Act. She believes that the grotesque law that incentivized citizens to help send humans into bondage is analogous to a law that incentivizes citizens to help prevent the slaughter of humans. Some might counter that the Texas law is more akin to laws that offer rewards for the capture of killers than it is to the Fugitive Slave Act.

Now that leftists have lost control of the U.S. Supreme Court, they’re stomping their angry feet and demanding the Court be jampacked with leftists, something conservatives have not called for to repair the grievous harm done by seven Justices in 1973. Neither the Constitution nor the will of the people matters to “progressives.”

There is no constitutional or moral right to have humans killed because of their dependency status, location, absence of self-consciousness, lack of full development, disabilities, anticipated future, maternal inconvenience, insufficient maternal finances, or crimes of their fathers. A civilized, compassionate, moral, and just society does not find the final solution to poverty, disease, disability, or any other form of human suffering in the killing of others. And in the Constitution, there is no free-floating absolute right to privacy in which humans can do anything they feel like doing to other human beings. Leftist U.S. Supreme Court Justices invented such a “right” out of whole blood-stained cloth.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Progressives-Say-the-Darndest-Things-About-Killing-Tiny-Humans.mp3

Three recent articles, one on NBC on June 15, one in Vanity Fair on June 16, and one on CNN on June 18, futilely attempt to recast conservative objections to the use of public schools to promote Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a “freakout,” “national panic,” “moral panic,” and “hysteria.” When leftists lack sound arguments, they resort to demagoguery. Any means to the ends of preventing conservatives from being as vocal as leftists in shaping culture are, in the narrow minds of leftists, justified.

This introductory sentence in the Vanity Fair article illuminates much of the problem with leftists when it comes to their use of public schools and funds to promote Critical Race Theory:

The right-wing freakout over critical race theory—or, at least what some Republican politicians and pundits think it is—has been playing out simultaneously in statehouses and TV studios, with lawmakers crafting bills to ban schools from teaching about systemic racism and conservative media figures fanning the flames.

Reading left-wing analyses of anything pertaining to race or sex requires a close look at every term to determine whether and how it’s been redefined. By “freakout” leftist writer Charlotte Klein, who writes for the appropriately named Vanity Fair Hive (lol), means the objections of “Republican politicians, pundits,” and “disgruntled parents” to the use of public schools to promote uncritically CRT and its many manifestations.

CNN’s Nicole Hemmer views opposition (what she calls “hysteria”)  to public school advocacy of assumptions derived from CRT as a red herring used by conservatives to divert attention away from the institutional racism poisoning America:

[A]rguing about critical race theory shifts the conversation away from the continued consequences of structural racism.

That conversation opens up challenging issues about equity, affirmative action, reparations, and government intervention to dismantle racist systems.

Both Klein and Hemmer assume that systemic/structural racism exists. And they assume the objections of conservatives to the promulgation of CRT in government schools are impelled by their desire to stop teaching about racism. In the view of leftists, the only way to think about race and racism is through a CRT-beclouded lens.

Moreover, neither Klein nor Hemmer acknowledges that CRT (and its many incarnations manufactured by racist “antiracism” profiteers) is a theory—a collection of arguable ideas—about race; race relations; oppression; “identity,” American history; equity; and equality (not to mention biological sex, homoerotic attraction, and cross-sex identification).

Leftists don’t want students to study assumptions derived from CRT along with critiques of CRT and resources that offer dissenting views on those topics. Leftists want CRT promoted uncritically and dissenting resources banned.

NBC slyly suggests that schools don’t even teach CRT, so what’s all the brouhaha about:

Virtually all school districts insist they are not teaching critical race theory, but many activists and parents have begun using it as a catch-all term to refer to what schools often call equity programs, teaching about racism or LGBTQ-inclusive policies.

Weeelll, that may be technically true. School administrators are gifted at the art of speaking technical truths with forked tongues. But take a look at the “equity” programs, racism teaching, and “LGBTQ-inclusive” programs. Then go read a primer on CRT. If I were a betting woman, I would bet you’d find some, shall we say, overlap.

NBC writes,

There’s no shortage of free publicity for the cause. The conservative focus on critical race theory is pervading right-wing news publications, like Fox News and Breitbart.

And CNN’s Nicole Hemmer writes that according to Media Matters,

Fox News … has mentioned critical race theory … nearly 1,300 times in the past three-and-a-half months.

What NBC failed to mention is the ample free publicity from the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, CNN, Daily Beast, Slate Magazine et al. for the arguable assumptions derived from Critical Race Theory and embedded in government schools, colleges and universities, corporate diversity re-education, and military diversity re-education.

And Hemmer failed to mention the countless times arguable assumptions derived from Critical Race Theory have been uncritically “mentioned” in resources used in classrooms and professional development training throughout the country over the past 30 years. Her failure to acknowledge what can only be described as decades-long CRT advocacy in government schools reveals that she is either profoundly ignorant or indefensibly deceitful.

NBC’s lengthy hit-job describes the epic plague that conservative opposition to CRT has–in the view of leftists–become:

The groups swarm school board meetings, inundate districts with time-consuming public records requests and file lawsuits and federal complaints alleging discrimination against white students.

Awww, poor wittle school districts having to endure swarms of locust-like conservatives attending board meetings and forcing districts to use valuable indoctrination time to reveal what goes on behind the scenes. Leftists are looking back wistfully at the good old days when conservatives had no idea what resources were used in classrooms and professional development—you know, the days before our re-educated youth looted and burned down our cities in racist, maskless, spittle-fueled insurrections.

NBC’s piece tries to recast long-overdue organized efforts by conservatives as some sort of secret nefarious plot to take over schools. But every strategy and tactic NBC attempts to besmirch has been used by leftists for decades. Leftists want to stop conservatives from doing exactly what leftists have been doing for decades and which enabled them to gain control of government schools. They desperately want to stop conservatives from organizing. They want to smear conservatives for using think tanks, political action groups, non-profits, and legal foundations to aid in the effort to restore pedagogical soundness to government schools.

But here’s what’s remarkable about the high dudgeon of leftists: This is their playbook.

The article mentions school board meetings attended by conservative “local residents, many without children in the district,” implying without asserting that it is illegitimate for local taxpayers without children currently attending schools to object to funding the promulgation of leftist ideas about race and sex.

What the NBC article didn’t mention is that for years leftists without children in district schools have both spoken at and served on school boards. And leftists have spoken at school board meetings who don’t even live in the district whose policies or curricula those leftists were addressing.

In a richly ironic statement cited by NBC, Sonja McKenzie, “a member of the board of directors of the National School Boards Action Center” claims to be “disturbed” by efforts of conservatives to oust leftist school board members:

The thing that disturbs me the most about politicizing school boards is there is no mention of kids. It’s not community centered, it’s centered on political thought and theory and things that don’t connect to education. 

Surely, she jests. Leftists have been colonizing and politicizing school boards, state boards of education, university teacher-training programs, teachers’ unions, the American Library Association, the Modern Language Association, and educational conferences for decades to ensure leftist political thought and theory on race and sexuality shape curricula, policy, practices, and professional development—all of which are intended to “connect” to the “education” of “kids.”

Just curious, how are the efforts of community members to oust leftists on school boards “not community centered”?

Here’s NBC’s objective reporting on two school board meetings in Nevada:

In Nevada, Washoe County’s school board halted in-person meetings in April, after residents filled a large auditorium and lobbed insults and threats of violence during the public comment portion. …

During the most recent meeting, which lasted 11 hours, speakers railed at school board members, calling them Marxists, racists, Nazis and child abusers, among other epithets.

Kristen De Haan, the mother of a senior in a district high school, said she attends the meetings in support of an expanded social justice curriculum and LGBTQ-inclusive sex education.

“I don’t always agree with the board by any stretch of the imagination,” De Haan, who is white, said. “But listening to the anger, and what truly feels like hatred … it’s really hard. I definitely get glares when I go up and speak.

What is notable about this “reporting,” is how different it is from reporting about school board meetings when conservatives who oppose, for example, co-ed locker rooms, obscene novels, or CRT, are routinely called racists and ignorant hateful bigots who support the bullying of children. No anger or hatred in those epithets, no siree. Just love, sweet love.

Notable too is missing context. Why might some community members call school board members Marxists, racists, or child abusers? Could it be that the accused school board members support the use of government funds to teach positively about controversial racist, Marxist CRT-infused ideas? Could it be that some parents view teaching children that their white skin makes them oppressors constitutes child abuse? Could it be that some parents view the sexual integration of children’s private spaces—also supported by CRT-infused organizations like BLM™—as child abuse?

Perhaps nothing better demonstrates both the arrogance and panic of leftists than the title of Charlotte Klein’s article: “The Right-Wing Meltdown Over Critical Race Theory is Spiraling Out of Control.”

To leftists, conservative efforts to stop the heretofore unobstructed ideological rampage of leftists through taxpayer-funded schools must be controlled. The Hive will leave no child’s mind unmolested by leftist dogma.

Leftists have thrown down the gauntlet. Take it up and slap ‘em—hard—figuratively speaking, of course.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/leftistsFreakOut_audio.mp3

The dust that racist bullies tried to kick in the face of the honorable U.S. Senator Tim Scott for his crime of delivering a far superior speech in response to Biden’s lackluster recitation before a sparsely attended joint session of Congress has not quite settled.

In addition to delivering a poignant, inspiring speech, Sen. Scott committed the crime of rejecting the dogma spewed by leftists who detest tolerance, inclusivity, and free-thinking—especially from blacks whom they desperately need to keep chained to the Democrat Party.

In order to malign Sen. Scott, MSNBC’s oft-deceitful Joy Reid had to misrepresent what he said. In a scornful tone, she imitated Scott, saying, “This isn’t a racist country. There’s no racism here.”

The first problem is Sen. Scott never said, “There’s no racism here.” He said America is not a racist country—big difference that apparently escaped Reid.

America is constituted and defined centrally by the principles delineated in our founding documents—documents which assume the existence of God–and Americans can be justifiably evaluated in terms of how they align with those principles. The Left is now moving America at a precipitous pace away from the Constitution and God and toward racism and other forms of oppression.

Since there are racists in every country in the world, and racist acts—including speech acts—are committed in every country in the world, does Reid believe every country in the world is racist?

There are liars in this country (including at MSNBC and CNN) and every other country. Does that, in Reid’s view, make America and every other country lying countries? In Reid’s view, are MSNBC and CNN lying companies?

There are lazy people in this and every other country. Does that make America and every other country lazy countries?

There are egregiously selfish people in this and every other country. Does that make America and every other country egregiously selfish countries?

There are lawless anarchists who loot and burn private businesses in America. Is America, therefore, a lawless, anarchical country?

Joe Biden said America is not a racist country, and Kamala Harris said Americans are not racists. In Reid’s view, are they racists?

“Progressives” have spewed virulently racist comments at Sen. Scott in the hours and days since his response. In Reid’s view, is “progressivism” racist?

Not to be outdone by Reid in the creepy racism department, MSNBC host Tiffany Cross described the “inside” of Sen. Scott’s head as “hollow,” asserting that he represents “no one but the sleepy, slow-witted sufferers of Stockholm syndrome who get elevated to prominence for repeating a false narrative about this country that makes conservative white people feel comfortable.” Cross called him Mitch McConnell’s “tap dancer,” and a “token” who is “thirsty for white approval.”

That’s rhetoric that would make a KKK grand wizard smile.

Cross claimed that when blacks speak “an uncomfortable truth, like Nikole Hannah-Jones [author of the 1619 Project], the party that Scott claims is not racist gets big mad and tries to silence you.” Her evidence for the outlandish claim that Republicans try to silence black “progressives” was that “Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell asked Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to scrap teaching of the 1619 Project.” Perfect encapsulation of the “progressive” belief that their freedom to do (or have) anything requires government subsidization.

Not using tax dollars or providing federal support for a particular curriculum does not constitute silencing it. And Republicans don’t object to the 1619 Project being taught in government schools because it articulates “uncomfortable” truths. They object to it because it’s a biased load of propaganda that many historians—including historians of color—find historically inaccurate.

While we digest the unsavory tripe that racist “progressives” are force-feeding us, trying to gaslight Americans into believing the freest, least racist country in the history of the world is “systemically racist,” let’s ruminate on a few questions.

Which political party supports the sale and purchase of humans (or genetic material to create humans)?

Which party separates children from mothers or fathers?

Which party declares some humans to be non-persons?

Which party denies children the freedom to go to good schools?

Which party tries to command persons of color what to think and say?

Which party is obsessed with skin color, averring that skin color matters more than character?

Are “progressives” like Reid and Cross concerned about the disproportionate number of black babies being slaughtered in their mothers’ wombs every year? Black Arizona State Representative Walt Blackman sure is:

Abortion impacts African Americans at a higher rate than any other population group. In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released an Abortion Surveillance Report. According to that report, black women make up 14 percent of the childbearing population. Yet, 36 percent of all abortions were obtained by black women. At a ratio of 474 abortions per 1,000 live births, black women have the highest ratio of any group in the country. …

A study by Protecting Black Lives, in 2012, found that 79 percent of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of minority communities.

In the past, we criticized the tobacco industry for targeting young people with their advertising. Recently, the nicotine vape industry has been criticized for similar practices. The prevalence of abortion providers in African American and Hispanic neighborhoods indicates the abortion industry is targeting too. It smacks of the eugenics-linked past of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and her views of contraception and abortion as ways of diminishing the black population.

What do Reid and Cross call “progressive” support for the killing of black babies? What do they call “progressive” support for Planned Parenthood, which plants most of its abattoirs in the heart of black communities? What do they call “progressive” endorsement of fatherless families and the policies that incentivize them when studies show one of the chief predictors of success is being raised in a home with a father? What do they call “progressive” refusal to offer school choice to disadvantaged families of color? What do they call it when “progressives” teach children of one skin color that children of another skin color are “lesser than”? What do they call it when “progressives” hurl the epithet “Uncle Tim” at a black man for thinking freely?

I call the whole stinking mess systemic racism.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/systemicRacismProgressives_mixdown.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

Have you seen the Project Veritas, undercover video footage exposing CNN’s extreme anti-Trump animus (see here and here)? Have you seen the candid comments about their intentional misrepresentations of both Trump (negatively) and Biden (positively)? Have you heard the unashamed admission that “fear sells”?

On the one hand, this is not surprising at all, given the obvious bias of CNN’s coverage, in particular, over the last 5 years.

On the other hand, to hear Charlie Chester, a technical director with CNN, state things so plainly is almost unnerving.

He said, “Our focus was to get Trump out of office, right? Without saying it, that’s what it was.”

And this: “[Trump’s] hand was shaking or whatever, I think. We brought in so many medical people to all tell a story that was all speculation – that he was neurologically damaged, and he was losing it. He’s unfit to – you know – whatever. We were creating a story there that we didn’t know anything about. I think that’s propaganda.”

Chester also boasted that the network targeted anti-Trump voters with stories on climate change, noting that “fear sells.”

Yet, before we condemn CNN for using this fear-based tactic, we conservatives (and Trump voters) should ask ourselves an honest question. Do we not also use the “fear sells” technique?

This, of course, does not justify CNN’s propagandistic reporting. Not for a moment.

This does not minimize the depth of their deception or the degree to which they knowingly and willingly misled their audience.

Not at all.

But, to be candid, we must realize that the “fear sells” sword cuts both ways, and it is not just the left that has a monopoly on exaggerated and even misleading reporting.

Wasn’t “fear sells” a major weapon in Trump’s arsenal? Wasn’t it one of his most powerful rhetorical tools, as he warned Americans about the dangerous direction in which this country was heading? And weren’t we encouraged to vote for Trump as if he were the last bastion standing against the destruction of America? Fear sells indeed.

The real question is whether the fear is based on truth rather than on lies. That’s what really matters.

Personally, I have been sounding the alarm for years, warning my readers and listeners and viewers about the spiritual and moral decline of the nation. I have written articles with titles like “Revival or We Die,” making clear that a national awakening is our only hope.

I have often warned that we stand on the edge of a very real precipice, and we are close to crossing over the point of no return.

That being said, there’s a big difference between spreading fear-inducing propaganda in order to increase your ratings vs. speaking the truth with a broken heart in order to avert coming judgment. There’s a big difference between willfully misreporting the facts in order to obtain a political outcome vs. issuing a prophetic warning based on love for your nation.

The former activities will, in fact, increase your ratings. The latter will increase the resistance that you face. The former will gain favor with the people you want to influence. The latter will gain favor with God.

That means that the use of fear to mobilize your audience is not wrong in itself, as long as the fear is based on truth. Hundreds of warnings in the Bible follow this very pattern, and the motivation for the warning is love.

In contrast, if it is a manufactured fear or an exaggerated fear, and if that fear is created to advance a selfish or partisan agenda, then that is a highly unethical, terribly dangerous practice.

Was Trump acting like a true prophet, warning of the demise of America, speaking accurately and carefully? Or did he, too, play fast and hard with the truth for the purpose of political gain? History will judge his actions and his words, and only God knows his heart.

What we can say for sure is this. To the extent that Charlie Chester’s words reflect CNN policy, their use of “fear sells” was of the basest, most vile sort. History will not judge them kindly.

This article was originally posted at AskDrBrown.org.

We learned this week that the love of money is the root of all evil. Well, we learned that in Scripture. This week purportedly conservative Christian governor of Arkansas Asa Hutchinson just reminded us of it when he sold out children to corporate interests.

For those still basking blithely in the afterglow of America’s once shining light or are socially distancing under a rock, the Arkansas legislature sent a bill to Hutchinson that would 1. prohibit doctors from the risky and experimental use of puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones—some of the effects of which are permanent—for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors, 2. prohibit surgeons from performing mutilating, irreversible cosmetic procedures on minors. and 3. prohibit the use of public funds, including Medicaid, for any of those barbaric, snake oil “treatments.”

The purportedly conservative, purportedly Christian Hutchinson vetoed this commonsense bill to protect children from procedures that are devastating young healthy bodies.

Hutchinson might reflect for a moment on who exactly is cheering his decision. Hint: It’s not conservatives. Oh, no, it’s the “trans”-cult; the “entertainment” industry; the medical industrial complex; the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party (i.e., CNN, NBC, MSNBC, NYTimes, and Washington Post); soulless corporate America; BLM; the ACLU; and the Human Rights Campaign.

Word to Hutchinson: If all the good guys are criticizing you and all the bad guys are cheering you, maybe you made a disastrous decision.

On Tucker Carlson’s Fox News program, Hutchinson defended his decision by appealing to conservative small government commitments—the last refuge of conservative scoundrels who want to embrace “progressive” positions on “social issues.” He also said, the bill “goes too far” because it would stop minors who are already being experimented on from continuing with dangerous “treatments” to conceal their biological sex.

Of course, small or limited government doesn’t mean no government. Nor does it mean abandoning children to the “trans”-cult and the godless profiteers who line their pockets with the lucre gained by chemically sterilizing children and lopping off parts of their sexual anatomy.

Many people, stunned by Hutchinson’s decision and not duped by his small government rationalization, look to corporate pressure as the real reason for Hutchinson’s alignment with the dark side.

In March Hutchinson appeared on another Fox News show and was asked about corporate “pushback” against legislation that promotes sexual sanity. Hutchinson responded,

We’re the home of some major global corporations here in Arkansas, they’re certainly worried about the image of our state.

Immediately after Hutchinson’s veto, left-leaning Tom Walton, whose family owns Walmart, issued this public pat-on-the-back to Hutchinson:

We are alarmed by the string of policy targeting LGBTQ people in Arkansas. This trend is harmful and sends the wrong message to those willing to invest in or visit our state. We support Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s recent veto of discriminatory policy and implore government, business and community leaders to consider the impact of existing and future policy that limits basic freedoms and does not promote inclusiveness in our communities and economy.

Our Founding Fathers would be surprised to learn that our “basic freedoms” include the freedom of children to stop puberty, take cross-sex hormones, and have healthy body parts cut off.

According to the Institute of Southern Studies,

Steuart Walton has been a generous donor to the Arkansas Republican Party as well as to Hutchinson’s campaign.

And Tucker Carlson reported that he “spoke with a source” who said that when the term-limited Hutchinson leaves office in 2022, “he would very much like a board seat” at Walmart.

There are some curious omissions in Hutchinson’s public statements on Fox News about the bill he vetoed.

For example, Hutchinson pointed to the depression and high rates of suicide among gender dysphoric minors. He implied that depression arises from gender dysphoria and can be alleviated by cross-sex hormone-doping. He didn’t seem to know that both depression and gender dysphoria could be symptoms of some other underlying problem. And he didn’t address studies showing that cross-sex hormone-doping can increase suicidal ideation or that suicidal ideation increases after “gender confirmation” butchery.

Hutchinson didn’t address the shocking increase in the number of adolescent girls now identifying as boys. Before the “trans”-cult stopped its slow titration of their ideological poison into the body politic, gender dysphoria affected a minuscule portion of the population and affected mostly boys, beginning between the ages of 3-5. Upwards of 80 percent of those boys eventually desisted from identifying as girls.

Now with the secular world promoting opposite-sex impersonation, particularly via social media, there is an explosion in the number of adolescent girls and young women suddenly identifying as male. As psychologists and sociologists know, girls are much more vulnerable to social contagions, like anorexia, bulimia, cutting, and now cross-sex identification.

Hutchinson didn’t mention the politicization of the professional medical and mental health communities. For example, while “trans”-cultists and their ideological allies like to tout the American Academy of Pediatrics’ endorsement of the medical “transing” of children, they don’t like to mention that the pro-“transing” policy was created and voted on by fewer than 50 members of the now-67,000-member academy.

Hutchinson didn’t mention the increasing number of young women who “detransition” and deeply regret having taken testosterone and/or having had their healthy breasts cut off. These young women with permanently male voices and scarred chests that will never nurse a baby feel betrayed by the medical and mental health communities.

Hutchinson didn’t talk about the health risks from the experimental use of puberty blockers and hormones never tested for long-term cross-sex use, risks that include infertility; liver dysfunction; coronary artery disease; cancer; strokes; osteoporosis; and the development of gallstones, blood clots, hypertension, and pituitary gland tumors.

Hutchinson never talked about the ethics of turning healthy children into lifelong medical patients (You know who likes that? Endocrinologists and pharmaceutical companies, that’s who).

Someone should ask Hutchinson whether his limited government principles would lead him to oppose bans on limb amputations for those with Body Integrity Identity Disorder—a condition in which the sufferer experiences a mismatch between his bodily wholeness and his internal sense of himself as an amputee.

And what about Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), which was banned by the Stop FGM Act of 2020 and signed into law by former President Donald Trump? Would small government Hutchinson oppose a ban on the excision of female genitalia from a 14-year-old girl who, for religious or cultural reasons, wants her genitalia mutilated?

While leftists, practiced at the art of deception and the skill of Newspeak, describe the slicing off of female genitalia as “mutilation,” they describe the slicing off of breasts as “gender affirmation care.”

Since girls as young as 13 are having double mastectomies, a 2015 article by Derrick Diaz and published in the DePaul University Journal of Healthcare Law about cosmetic surgery for minors may offer some helpful insights:

Minors should not have access to cosmetic surgery unless found by a court to be medically necessary. … [I]f medical necessity has not been shown, then the service should be prohibited the same as any regulated service or product prohibited to minors.

…

[A] medical necessity determination can be made through a four-pronged analysis. First, does the impairment hinder a minor’s normal physical function; and, is the proposed surgery intended to treat a present or future clinically verifiable disease, deformity, or injury? Second, is the physical anomaly (1) objectively tangible, and (2) unusual or relatively common? Third, what is the state of the minor applicant’s psychological health? Fourth, would a reasonable minor in the applicant’s position be hindered from normal functioning by the condition (e.g., avoiding normal childhood/adolescent activities)?

…

[R]egardless of whether continued [legislative] noninterference is sound policy generally speaking, it is absolutely not so with regard to minors, as states have statutory mandates to protect their health and welfare. When it comes to cosmetic surgery on minors, states must have an intervening hand in preventing the potentially harmful effects of caveat emptor.

“Trans”-cultists and their allies try to get around this position by arguing that amputating the healthy, natural breasts of gender-dysphoric minor girls is “medically necessary.” But it’s not, and leftists have no conclusive, researched-based proof that it is.

On March 30, just days before his surprising veto, Hutchinson met with two “trans”-cultists—both men who pretend to be women, including “Evelyn” Rios Stafford, a justice of the peace in Arkansas, who pleaded with Hutchinson to veto the bill.

Did Hutchinson talk to any parents of teen daughters who suddenly started identifying as boys?

Did he talk to any young “detransitioned” women who grieve over their damaged bodies and the betrayal of adults who didn’t stop them?

Did he talk to any of the members of the American College of Pediatricians who oppose experimentation on the healthy bodies of children?

Did he consult with Abigail Shrier, the Wall Street Journal writer who wrote the book Irreversible Damage about the harm being done to adolescent girls?

Has he read any of the articles by historically leftist Jennifer Bilek who has been exposing the “money behind the rapidly growing juggernaut of transgenderism in American culture and beyond,” which she argues, “all leads back to the pharmaceutical and tech giants that now interface with LGBT NGOs which are driving the normalization of a biology-denying ideology.”

There is some good news emerging from Arkansas. The Arkansas legislature overrode Hutchinson’s unconscionable veto.

If Hutchinson’s relationship with God and truth are his first priorities—which they should be—then he should publicly confess his sinful decision and repent. Something tells me, however, that confession and repentance aren’t on his agenda.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Gov. Hutchinson via his official webpage. You can also call the governor’s office during normal business hours to give him and his administration feedback: (501) 682-2345

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Asa-Hutchinson-Sells-Out-Gender-Dysphoric-Children.mp3

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!

Remember last July when CNN’s homosexual “journalist” Don Lemon said, “Here’s the thing, Jesus Christ—if … you believe in Jesus Christ—admittedly was not perfect when he was here on this Earth”? Apparently, Lemon forgot these verses about Jesus:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.

He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Well, Lemon’s at it again—that is, demonstrating his biblical ignorance. This time, in response to a question from Meghan McCain about the Vatican saying it won’t bless same-sex unions, Lemon responded,

The Catholic Church and many other churches really need to reexamine themselves and their teachings because that it not what God is about. God is not about hindering people or even judging people. … I would say to the pope and the Vatican and all Christians and Catholics … go out and meet people and try to understand people and do what the Bible and what Jesus actually said—if you believe in Jesus—and that is to love your fellow man and to judge not lest ye be not judged.

Yes, he said that—all of it. Why, oh, why does someone so biblically ignorant pontificate repeatedly on Christianity?

For the umpteenth time, God judges both people and actions. While God loves his creation, he hates many things that his fallen creatures believe, desire, and do. We learn that in Scripture. We learn too that Christians are to discern properly and to discriminate—that is, judge—between right and wrong actions. We learn that we are to “judge with righteous judgment,” to “expose the unfruitful works of darkness,” and to “declare the whole counsel of God.” God instructs individuals, church bodies, and civil authorities repeatedly to make judgments regarding right conduct.

We also learn in the Old Testament that God does, indeed, hinder and judge people. And as we learn throughout Scripture, God will judge us all.

The words of Jesus that Lemon attempted to quote, Matthew 7:1, “Judge not, that you be not judged,” are often misunderstood, misused, or abused by those who affirm homoeroticism as good. This admonition from Jesus means several things. What is does not mean is that Christians are prohibited from making distinctions between right and wrong acts. This verse means that,

1.) Fallen humans should not presume to judge the hearts of others,

2.) We are not to presume to know who is saved and who is not, and

3.) We are not to condemn hypocritically a sin in which we ourselves engage. We’re to recognize the universality of sin and offer forgiveness as we have been forgiven.

It’s absurd to claim that the Bible prohibits Christians from making statements about what constitutes moral conduct (i.e., to judge). Neither Lemon nor anyone other than sociopaths believes people should refrain from making moral judgments. Lemon and his ideological allies regularly judge the beliefs, feelings, words, and deeds of others. Has he ever watched CNN?

With pomposity, scorn, and nastiness, leftists regularly judge theologically orthodox Christians. If Christians believe what God’s Word says about sexuality, they are called ignorant, intolerant, hateful bigots—or worse. If “judging people”–in the sense of judging the beliefs, feelings, and acts of people–is wrong, as Lemon says it is, then Lemon and other leftists shouldn’t be judging and condemning Christians as “homophobes” and “transphobes.”

Every civilized human makes judgments every day between right and wrong actions. When Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.—to whom Lemon referred favorably—condemned racism, he was judging. When he said the church was “blemished and scarred” by racism and rendered “weak” and “ineffectual,” he was judging. There is no mistaking that Rev. King heartily endorsed judging. In “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Rev. King wrote,

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

Lemon doesn’t really mean Christians shouldn’t make judgments about right and wrong. He really means Christians shouldn’t make any judgments he hates.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Bible-Expert-Don-Lemon-Opines-Again.mp3

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!

This September 19-25, 2021, the displays in public libraries for the American Library Association’s annual Banned Books Week are going to be overflowing with banned books. In addition to Ryan T. Anderson’s book When Harry Became Sally, and Abigail Shrier’s book, Irreversible Damage, there will be not one, not two, not three, but SIX Dr. Seuss books.

Historically the American Library Association has deemed a book “banned” if a few parents asked for it to be removed from the children’s section to another section of the library. Such a “banning” throws them into a tizzy after which they fall onto their fainting couches. Just imagine how they must feel now that book-burners managed to get the publisher of Dr. Seuss’s books to stop publishing SIX of them. Get those guy, gal, and sexually ambiguous librarians some smelling salts STAT.

What, you may be wondering, did Dr. Seuss write or draw that led to today’s book-burners—also known in Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451 as Firemen (Gotta burn that book next year. “Firemen” definitely hurts somebody’s feelings).

One of the allegedly offensive books is If I Ran the Zoo in which young Gerald McGrew imagines traveling the world to collect exotic never-before-seen animals from faraway places for his zoo. The drawings most intensely drawing leftist ire are one of Asian characters with yellow skin and slanted eyes wearing traditional Asian clothes and using chopsticks, and the other is a drawing of two Africans wearing loin cloths and nose rings as many members of African tribes have historically done.

There is also a drawing of Persian princes wearing Persian garb and one of a Russian soldier with a big bushy beard wearing a Russian military uniform and carrying a bird called the “Russian Palooski whose headski is redski.” But those stereotypes don’t seem to bother leftists all that much.

CNN editor-at-large Chris Cillizza said this about the decision by the publisher of Dr. Seuss’s books to cease publication of six books—a decision compelled by leftist Firemen:

While six of his books will no longer be published, the remaining three dozen or so will still be on the bookshelves. That isn’t a cancellation.

Well, the cancellation of the publication of the six books actually is a cancellation.

Should a society censor books? Is burning a book written in 1950 because of several questionable images the proper response? Who will decide which books should be burned? Who will decide which hurt feelings render book-burning necessary? Are the faux-hurt feelings of leftist adults in academia sufficient justification for book-burning?

Leftists whine endlessly about stereotyping, suggesting that stereotypes are intrinsically offensive and hurtful. In so whining, they fail to acknowledge that stereotypes emerge from and reflect real phenomena. Stereotypes do not precede and create phenomena. Humans notice differences and categorize phenomena. That’s how the human mind works.

We are expected to worship at the altar of multiculturalism, but multiculturalism is based on the reality that there are distinctives that characterize different people groups. From those differences emerge “stereotypes.” And storytelling often depends on depicting characters that represent the diverse types of groups we observe. That is to say, storytelling depends on stereotypes.

One could argue that the wildly popular television program Will and Grace and movie Black Panther are filled with stereotypes, and yet the presence of stereotypes—that is, characters that represent recognizable types—in those cases is not viewed as either insulting or degrading.

Crazy Rich Asians, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Moonstruck, Godfather, Goodfellas, Mean Girls, Boyz N the Hood, and Birdcage too are replete with stereotypes. The “types” came first.

If someone wanted to write a children’s book about a Chinese family, would it make sense to depict the family with big round blue eyes in order to avoid the “stereotype” that Chinese people have brown eyes with slanted monolids?

If we’re going to burn books based on claims that they include hurtful language directed at “authentic identities,” then we’re gonna need one colossal bonfire. Every book that describes theologically orthodox people as “homophobic” or “transphobic” for views on sexuality or marriage central to their identity as Christians needs to be burned.

Former president of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom (ALA OIF), the much-revered Judith Krug, once said this in an interview:

We have gone through periods where our biggest threats have been from the left of center, where people have wanted to remove materials that did not portray, for instance, minority groups in the way that they thought minority groups should be portrayed. … If we [the ALA OIF] have an agenda, it is protection of the First Amendment.

In that same interview, Krug said something even more salient to the issue of banning the six of Dr. Seuss’s books:

[M]any years ago …  Meshach Taylor made a statement … during a panel discussion that I participated in before the opening of The Big River at the Goodman Theater. Now, The Big River is one of the stage versions of Huckleberry Finn. Meshach Taylor was playing Nigger Jim, and one of the questions that came up from the audience during this panel was, “Do you really feel that Huckleberry Finn is appropriate for young people to read? Given the name of Nigger Jim, isn’t it too embarrassing or too frightening, or doesn’t it raise specters for young people that they would be better off without?” And Meshach Taylor answered, “You don’t know how you got to where you’re at today unless you know where you came from yesterday. And if you don’t know where you came from yesterday to get to where you’re at today, you’ll never know how to go forward into tomorrow.”

Here’s an idea: Stop demanding the banning of Dr. Seuss books. Let them be published and purchased wherever books are sold. And leave all of them on library shelves right behind the drag queens reading stories to toddlers and right next to picture books about Heather’s two mommies and tutu-wearing boys. Then moms and dads can decide which books to purchase or check-out, and read to their children.

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI,
please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.

It makes a difference!

Written by Don Alltoada

Media networks are powerful opinion setters. Still, for a reason, most people have deep distrust in newsmakers. Since their outset, press and radio were brought into play for political propaganda.

The first use of the term “mass media” dates back to 1923. It appeared in the columns of the magazine “Advertising and Selling” and referred to the “most economical way” to spread, in no time, its message to all target market groups.

The initial definition had an advertising focus, most likely due to the development that the same year of the first American radio network in Boston. The concept directed to the public was plain and simple – mass communication for mass consumption.

The postulate was further refined by Harold Lasswell. In his book “Propaganda Technique in the World War”, published in 1927, he described his “hypodermic needle model”, known also as the “hypodermic-syringe model”, “transmission-belt model”, or “magic bullet” theory. This is a model of communication suggesting that an intended message is directly received and entirely accepted by the receiver.

The model got rooted in the 1930s behaviorism and had fallen into obsolescence for some time, but big data analytics-based mass customization has led to the revival of the initial idea behind it.

Four decades later, in 1964, the concept was deepened by Marshall McLuhan in his book “Understanding Media.” According to McLuhan, cinema, television, the press and radio are “mass media” because they have the same characteristics: one-way communication, one-sidedness of the message, undifferentiation and linearity of information.

In his views, the mass media – a Marxist concept that globalists and neosocialists will strive to revive after the election of President Biden – would contribute to a happy “global village” by catalyzing a common culture of “micro-societies.”

That credulous reading was opposed by leading intellectuals of the 20^th century. In their macro-perception and analysis of mass media, the main fear, fully justified we may say today, was the increased facility to submerge people and nations with propaganda messages. The “global village” turned to be everything but a “happy” one.

The meticulous and systematic application of the “magic bullet theory” transpires from the reporting practices of CNN and the New York Times. By targeting audiences with carefully crafted inaccuracies or half-true messages, they denigrate or enhance, at their ease, in line with their prevailing political inclination and leftist ideology.

CNN and the NYT lost it on the central tenet of journalism: objectivity and reliability of information. It is a false claim to argue that President Trump was the central disrupter in modern media; his presidency coincided with deep and rapid changes in society and technology that reshaped the concept of neutral journalism.

The only profession mentioned in the U.S. Constitution is the press. It has long been seen as essential to democratic governance. Free speech, enshrined in the First Amendment, is one of the bulwarks of individual liberty and equality. This has not always included the perception of impartiality and objectivity. In the 18th and 19th century, in fact, most newspapers were often aggressively partisan.

Today, standards are different and journalism is attacked for not being balanced. At the same time, the idea of nonpartisan journalism is fading away. With the sharp polarization of the American society, news corporations opt for returning to their vigorous and confrontational ways of the past.

Still, in doing so, they must abide to ethical principles and deontological objectivity. The existing legislation must be adapted to the evolving media environment. More than the hackneyed “protecting democracy” pretext, this time it is a question of protecting the freedoms of U.S. citizens from misleading public opinion influencers.

Because of the large erosion of trust in the media, mainstream news corporations face new credibility risks in terms of public opinion. CNN and the NYT handled a wide-ranging backlash for being unprofessional on a number of occasions and in the last five years they just flushed what remained of their reputation down the toilet.

For instance, CNN was forced to retract a story on its website that claimed the Senate was investigating links between a Russian bank and a close ally of Trump. The network apologized and three high-ranking CNN journalists resigned.

The New York Times, too, had to correct an editorial and apologize for incorrectly linking a map produced by Sarah Palin’s political action committee to the 2011 shooting of U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords (D-AZ)

The Associated Press has issued corrections as well for its coverage of the Russian election meddling story.

CNN has been the subject of allegations of party bias and disparate treatment of Republican and Democratic candidates during the last two presidential primaries.

In October 2016, WikiLeaks published emails from John Podesta which showed CNN contributor Donna Brazile passing the questions for a CNN-sponsored debate to the Clinton campaign. In the email, Brazile discussed her concern about Clinton’s ability to field a question regarding the death penalty. The following day Clinton received the question about the death penalty, verbatim, from an audience member at the CNN-hosted Town Hall event. According to a CNNMoney investigation, debate moderator and CNN contributor Roland Martin “did not deny sharing information with Brazile”.

During the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries debate moderated by CNN and the Des Moines Register on 14 January 2020, CNN faced controversy and criticism from media pundits and the public alike over what many saw as blatant bias for centrist candidates as well as a CNN article some journalists believe to be a manufactured hit piece intended to depict Bernie Sanders as a misogynist prior to the debate followed by a series of adversarial and loaded questions during the debate itself regarding the anonymously sourced story.

On 10 January 2017, CNN reported on the existence of classified documents that said Russia had compromising personal and financial information about then President-elect Donald Trump. CNN did not publish the dossier, or any specific details of the dossier.

Later that day, BuzzFeed published the entire 35-page dossier with a disclaimer that it was unverified and “includes some clear errors”. The dossier had been read widely by political and media figures in Washington, and had been sent to multiple other journalists who had declined to publish it as it was unsubstantiated.

On 26 June 2017, three network investigative journalists; Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau, and Lex Haris, resigned from CNN over a false story, later retracted, that connected Anthony Scaramucci to a US $10 billion Russian investment fund. The network apologized to Scaramucci and stated that the online story did not meet their editorial standards.

The Washington Post fact-checked a CNN report regarding Trump on 8 December 2017: CNN ran a story that claimed two sources told the network that the Trump campaign received an email that gave Trump and his son Don, Jr., early access to WikiLeaks documents on 4 September 2016. The Washington Post, did obtain the email, which showed that the CNN information was wrong and CNN was forced to issue a correction of their story.

What is more, the case of the former UN high official Frank LaRue proves the impossible moral equilibrium for CNN and the NYT of preaching and delivering ethically on the same subject.

Four months ago, the Liberty Sentinel reported that Fundamedios, a human rights organization committed to protecting journalists and combating misinformation, elected as Chairman of its Board of Directors in the United States a sex offender that was sacked from UNESCO in 2018. Yet, Frank La Rue’s biography on its website makes no mention of his previous role at UNESCO or how he lost it.

La Rue was booted out of his senior UN post in February 2018 after the Daily Mail revealed ‘MeToo’-style allegations that he sexually harassed and aggressed a woman working with him. His job at the UN was to promote freedom of expression globally as ‘fundamental’ to democracy. Yet after being marched out of UNESCO’s headquarters, he lodged a formal complaint about the press finding out about it and claimed some US $160,000 in “damages for injury to his reputation” against UNESCO, accusing the UN agency of disclosing information about him. His claim was dismissed.

As also revealed by the Liberty Sentinel, among the Fundamedios Board of U.S. advisors appear two major leftist media duly represented for CNN by Fernando del Rincón and by Boris Muñoz for the New York Times. Working with Frank La Rue did not create any moral discomfort to both. At the same time, a CNN webpage is specifically devoted to allegations of sexual impropriety. You can read there:

“Since 2016, dozens of high-profile men have been accused of sexual misconduct, harassment or assault (…).The list of accused men includes key figures across politics, news media and entertainment. (…) Some have lost their jobs. Others have not”. 

Frank LaRue is not included in the CNN list. Instead, he is considered as a reliable partner by CNN and the NYT. Demonstrably, the sexual misconduct of LaRue is not a problem for their unethical corporations.

Following the publications in the press revealing the scandal, Fundamedios removed immediately Frank La Rue from his position. The organization kept him however as Director for Advocacy and Human Rights. When he got the Chairmanship, Fundamedios issued a press release announcing his election. We have seen none on his ejection.

Our attempts to obtain a comment from Fundamedios prior to the publication of this article did not bear result. Their email address in the USA is not operational, and neither is the telephone line in Washington DC provided for contact on their webpage.

The main question that remained unanswered was how would Fundamedios describe the reasons for conferring responsibility for Advocacy and Human Rights to a sexual harasser, with proven misconduct that led to his sacking from UNESCO?

Both leftist media CNN and the NYT are still involved with Fundamedios and find no ethical problem to cooperate with an organization in which the responsibility for human rights is conferred to a sexual offender. Once more, CNN and the NYT were caught on the spot preaching for greater morality but doing exactly the opposite.

* * * * *

With CNN and the NYT irreversibly damaging reporting standards, the main battle for press and media is to remain consequential in the context of increasing public mistrust. Nowadays, too often, cases of corruption and other unlawful deeds disclosed by the press are judiciary ignored, and perpetrators feel free and nonchalantly unaccountable.

The banalization of reporting political scandals and financial scheming represents a serious risk for journalism at a time when thousands of news reports are aired per minute, every single hour of the day. If that continues, journalistic work will become inconsequential and journalism will turn into a business like any other business – profit oriented and money dependent.

The American media ecosystem has become saturated with misinformation and noise because the press remains committed to a set of norms that are ill-adapted to the digital age. That makes it easy for bad-faith actors to get away with pushing falsehoods.

It the digital era, evolvements in the media landscape are unpredictable. The unexpected move by Facebook this week to block news access in Australia was unimaginable only weeks ago. The retaliatory move blocked Australians from sharing news stories, escalating a fight with the government over whether powerful tech companies should have to pay news organizations for content. Facebook acted after the House of Representatives passed legislation that would make it and Google pay for Australian journalism. The decision of Mark Elliot Zuckerberg also blocked some government communications, including messages about emergency services. What’s happening in Australia today may become a precedent for other countries as governments revamp laws to catch up with the fast-changing digital world.

Unmistakably, the “cyberspaced” world is entering a phase where the future of reporting is going to be based on consumers view on whether a story is worth enough to pay for it, by subscribing or subsidizing. The job of reporters will be to a greater extent to provide guideposts for people who have too much information in front of them at every moment of their life.

Because of social media devouring humans’ brains, the viability of journalism is already in a weakened condition. The risk is that journalism can destroy itself from within, if its standards keep being lowered so as to fit the minimal media reading skills of the general public. A new generation of citizens will be formatted according to such new media paradigms and the fundamental freedoms of people will be again at risk.

This article was originally published by Liberty Sentinel.

Chinese Translation – 中文翻译

No matter what you think of Trump’s character or rhetoric (I’ve never been a fan of either), his presidency accomplished many great things for America, perhaps chief among them getting the left—especially Big Tech—to expose its purulent underbelly. The real power today rests in the delicate fingers of the tech Oligarchs sitting behind their screens moving walls to trap Americans in their prison-like mazes equipped with virtual solitary confinement cells and freedom-crushing language rules euphemistically called “community standards” and “policies.” Trump was the immovable force that stood for a brief moment in their way.

The tyrannical nature of leftists has emerged more fully following the indefensible and shocking 90-minute assault on the Capitol. The fury of those robbed of faith and family by leftist ideologies turned from the theft and arson of businesses and police precincts—targets Dems couldn’t have cared less about—to the Capitol. The monsters who were created and abandoned have turned on some of their Frankensteinian creators, that is Congressmen and women.

Yes, leftist ideologies create lawless anarchists on both the left and right. Violence is the business of fatherless, faithless, anchorless young men. Always has been, always will be.

After five months of lawless leftist anarchy during which CNN, AOC, and scores of other leftists defended and egged on alienated leftist anarchists who attacked symbols of government, law, and order, alienated far-right anarchists decided to attack a symbol of government, law, and order too.

Of course, Congress hasn’t worked alone on the pernicious project to destroy humans from conception to unnatural death. Leftists and RINOs in Congress colluded with among others, leftist academics, Hollywood, Christian apostates and heretics within the church, propagandists who self-identify as “journalists,” and, of course, Big Tech.

Big Techies have been colluding during a long game of 3D chess while Republicans have been in a corner playing tiddlywinks and occasionally wondering where their winkies disappeared to. (They disappeared long ago during the Great Gelding of Republicans in year … oh, I can’t remember. It was so long ago.)

And now we’re on the verge of the Great Purge of conservatives from society.

Those who had eyes to see discerned the oppression goose-stepping toward the center in stocking feet. Those with 20/5 vision tried to warn the flocks. They’re still trying to warn them. But the tyrants are now in our midst, and they’re replacing noise-cancelling socks with speech-cancelling jackboots. The center is not holding.

First Twitter suspended the accounts of President Trump, General Michael Flynn, and Sidney Powell. The collaborators at Google, Apple, and Facebook joined in the Purge.

Next came Amazon banning Parler—the up and coming Twitter competitor—from its web-hosting service. Apparently Jack Dorsey held his breath and stomped his feet at the mere thought of competition. Once servers refuse to host social media platforms like Parler, those platforms are toast. This is Big Brother on steroids.

And then there’s CNN business “reporter” Oliver Darcy who wrote this on Friday:

[I]t is time TV carriers face questions for lending their platforms to dishonest companies that profit off of disinformation and conspiracy theories. After all, it was the very lies that Fox, Newsmax, and OAN spread that helped prime President Trump’s supporters into not believing the truth.

This from the “news” organization that refused to ask Biden any hard questions before the election and that censored news stories in order to shovel Biden, the malleable and dim marionette, into the seat of power.

Even a Democrat lawmaker got into the rollicking censorship fun. New Jersey assemblyman Paul Moriarty (distant relative perhaps of Professor James Moriarty, arch-nemesis of Sherlock Holmes?) texted a Comcast executive with this subtle message:

Fox and Newsmax, both delivered to my home by your company, are complicit. What are you going to do??? You feed this garbage, lies and all.

Some conservatives have drawn a line in the virtual sand, saying they refuse to be forced off Facebook. They don’t see that the Tech Oligarchs—now including Bezos-the-Bezillionaire—are not trying to force them off. Quite the contrary. The Oligarchs and Overlords are trying to keep conservatives trapped in their virtual prisons. They’re trying to prevent conservatives from leaving by cutting off all other means of communicating ideas in the public square or to friends.

If you want to communicate far and wide with friends old and new, you will be able to do it only on platforms created by the Oligarchs and Overlords and only within the speech parameters they create and impose—on their “neutral platforms.” The Tech Oligarchs don’t want us to leave their fiefdoms. They want us to stay and remain under their sclerotic poisoned thumbs.

It’s not just conservatives who are concerned about tech tyranny. Kate Ruane, attorney for the ACLU, issued a statement via Twitter last Friday saying,

[I]t should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions.

And Kevin Roose, technology columnist for the New York Times echoes the worries of many on both sides of the political aisle—but mainly on the right—about the power of social media wielded with no accountability and no transparency:

Above all, Mr. Trump’s muzzling provides a clarifying lesson in where power resides in our digital society — not just in the precedent of law or the checks and balances of government, but in the ability to deny access to the platforms that shape our public discourse. Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Zuckerberg’s names have never appeared on a ballot. But they have a kind of authority that no elected official on earth can claim.

While leftists have spent four years calling Trump a Nazi, tyrant and dictator, did he ever try to do what leftists are doing now? Has Trump or any other Republican ever attempted to compel or censor speech?

And this is what Never-Trumpers and their small-minded obsession with Trump’s pugilistic rhetoric have brought to our doorsteps. Never-Trumpers with their beady little myopic eyes still can’t see that without Trump’s pugilism, leftists would not yet have revealed their game plan, because unlike Trump, leftists, like the unctuous Obama and arrogant Oligarchs in charge of Big Tech—which is to say, our lives—are more practiced at the art of political deception.

Leftists and RINOs scorn the idea that drove thousands of law-abiding non-insurrectionists to Washington D.C., which is that the election was stolen. Curiously, those same scorners keep their gimlet eyes and forked tongues focused on the Kraken, never acknowledging other concerns of non-insurrectionists like, for example, what liberal Democrat and Biden-voter  senior research psychologist at the  American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology Robert Epstein—a Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden—said in Senate Judiciary Sub-Committee hearing on the Constitution in July 2019:

Google presents a serious threat to democracy and human autonomy. … Data I’ve collected since 2016 show that Google displays content to the American public that is biased in favor of one political party—a party I happen to like, but that’s irrelevant. No private company should have either the right or the power to manipulate large populations without their knowledge. … [D]emocracy as originally conceived cannot survive Big Tech as currently empowered.

Epstein’s earlier research showed that millions of votes were shifted to Hillary in 2016, and post 2020-election research showed that millions were shifted to Biden by Google’s tricksy algorithms.

They’re also ignoring what liberal Democrat Senator Ron Wyden said in Feb. 2020 and which sounds a lot like what conservative non-insurrectionists are being pilloried by leftists for saying:

I fear the 2020 election will make 2016 look like small potatoes. The list of threats and vulnerabilities is enough to give you a migraine.

There were the ES&S voting machines that for years came with preinstalled remote access software.

There’s the fact that Russia hacked an election vendor called VR Systems in the summer of 2016.

VR systems machines in North Carolina malfunctioned on Election Day that year, and one polling place had to shut down for hours. It took two and a half years before the Department of Homeland Security investigated what happened.

Right now, many election officials across the country are buying election systems they believe are high-tech, but they’re vulnerable to hacking and out-of-date the moment they come out of the box.

There is the spread of mobile voting apps like Voatz that have never been vetted by top security experts.

There’s a reason cybersecurity experts have been sounding the alarm for years, warning that putting computers between a voter and their ballot is a recipe for disaster.

What happens when the “glitch” changes a candidate’s vote totals by just 2 or 5 percent, instead of 50 percent? What happens when a glitch shuts down machines in some precincts and not others, disenfranchising voters and skewing election results?

Five states still exclusively use hackable, paperless voting machines, and nine other states still use paperless machines in some counties.

The problems are daunting … but the solutions are clear.

My bill, the PAVE Act, mandates the three key priorities that experts most universally recommended—paper ballots, routine, post-election risk-limiting audits, and federal cybersecurity standards for election systems.

… Senator Klobuchar introduced the Senate version of the SAFE Act, which I’m proud to co-sponsor. The SAFE Act has all three key elements recommended by our nation’s top cybersecurity experts: paper ballots, security standards and post-election audits, as well as the funding necessary to make sure states can live up to the new standards.

There is another obstacle to the Oligarchs’ domination of infinity and beyond. It is Senator Josh Hawley, virtually the only Congressman to take on Big Tech by calling for social media platforms to lose Section 230 protections from liability. Section 230 protections apply to “neutral platforms” which Twitter and Facebook with all their censoring, de-platforming, and slammer-tossing clearly are not.

So, the whipsmart and courageous Josh Hawley had to be taken out by the delicate-fingered. His effort to demonstrate that Pennsylvania’s illegal and unconstitutional extension of the voting deadline matters provided just the opportunity the slimy Tech Oligarchs, Dems, and RINOs needed to do just that.

The problem for the delicate-fingered and their congressional collaborators was Hawley’s objections alone would not have been sufficient. The Oligarchs, conscience-free Dems, and RINOs needed something more.

And then the anarchists gave them the crisis they needed. Flying to their virtual barns, the Oligarchs and their collaborators hauled out their waiting pitchforks, tar, and feathers. Sparks flying from their fingertips, they demanded Hawley resign, accusing him of contributing to an insurrection. Then more gelded Republicans came creeping out of their dark corners squeaking in their high castrated voices that they would no longer support Hawley’s effort.

Somehow the well-respected and reasonable journalist Byron York didn’t notice how crazy the idea that Pennsylvania violated the Constitution was. In a piece titled “The Election Lawsuit Trump Should Win,” York wrote:

The court fight over Pennsylvania’s election rules … involves a fundamental issue that is important to all 50 states. … putting aside the specifics of the Pennsylvania situation, the matter concerns a hugely important principle, which is the constitutional authority of state legislatures to make election law for their states.

York’s essay is an important read for anyone who may not know the details of the Pennsylvania mess.

Not even Trump is guilty of “incitement to insurrection,” let alone Hawley. In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, attorney Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, known during his years as a D.C. prosecutor as “protestor prosecutor,” writes that “The president didn’t mention violence on Wednesday, much less provoke or incite it.”

All tyrants use crises to expand powers that are never relinquished. They inflame public fears about threats to their safety from disease, from foreign enemies, or from dangers lurking in their midst. They are skilled at fomenting social division, imposing censorship, and disseminating propaganda to acquire more control. What’s next? Facial recognition cameras everywhere? Then a social credit system like China has?

There’s something rotten in the Upside Down ruled by the Oligarchs and administered by their algorithmically determined minions who control the speech by which ideas are disseminated. Somewhere along the life journeys of the Oligarchs, they lost sight of the meaning of the First Amendment, which was intended to protect unpopular speech—not just the speech leftists like. Who knows, maybe one day the only way conservatives will be able to communicate is via underground newspapers. So, hold on to those archaic printing presses, my friends. I think we’re gonna need ‘em.

Listen to this article read by Laurie: 

Please consider a gift to the Illinois Family Institute.
As always, your gift to IFI is tax-deductible and greatly appreciated!

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

By now many Americans have learned what slimy, deceitful hypocrites California governor Gavin Newsom and his wealthy, well-connected friends are. In a stunning act of arrogant “do what I say, not what I do, PEONS,” he and his privileged co-scofflaws dined at an exclusive restaurant in Napa Valley—indoors without masks—in violation of his own rules.

His co-scofflaws included Dustin Corcoran, the CEO of the California Medical Association, and Janus Norman, the group’s lobbyist and senior vice president. Apparently, some medical professionals don’t really think dining indoors mask-less with friends puts their lives at risk. Now I’m waiting for all of Hollywood, the Democrat Party, and the faux-journalists at CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post to explode in paroxysms of sanctimonious rage and primal fear at the prospect of the imminent deaths of all the people these twelve scofflaws will infect.

But don’t worry, Newsom is very very sorry he got caught.

The reality is many—perhaps most—leftists don’t believe the alarmist claims they exploit for political—that is, anti-Trump—purposes. In the midst of the first COVID-19 surge, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot commanded her subjects to forgo haircuts, while she—unmasked—had her hair done because she wanted to look good in front of the cameras and because she cares about her “hygiene”—unlike, presumably, her subjects. After the election, she joined her subjects in the street for a victory celebration and then promptly put the kibosh on their Thanksgiving celebrations saying, “You must cancel the normal Thanksgiving plans, particularly if they include guests that do not live in your immediate household.”

She followed that up with her Thanksgiving “advisory”:

– Stay home unless for essential reasons

– Stop having guests over—including family members you do not live with

– Avoid non-essential travel

– Cancel traditional Thanksgiving plans

Not to be outdone in hypocrisy or authoritarian intrusiveness, Oregon’s “openly bisexual” governor Kate Brown has issued these commands, which, if not followed, can result in  fines up to $1,250 or 30 days in jail:

• Private Social Events—limited to two households or six individuals in a closed group (including Thanksgiving)

• Wear a mask in your own home on Thanksgiving, only removing it when eating

• Don’t leave your home during the two-week shutdown

So much for “our bodies, ourselves.”

While in June Brown said “she believes the use of tear gas against protesters is unacceptable,” she is now working with “state police and local law enforcement” to ensure compliance with her Thanksgiving orders.  Think about that for a minute.

This is the same governor who allowed the creation of the potential super-spreader rebel state of CHAZ/CHOP in six blocks of Portlandia and who allowed mostly violent potential super-spreader protests to ravage the rest of Portlandia. So, does bisexual Brown really believe gatherings of ten are highly likely to be lethal gatherings?

Privileged leftists who dine at uber-swanky, $350 per person ($35-45 per glass of wine) restaurants are utterly cavalier about destroying people’s livelihoods while they do not themselves believe that socializing mask-less puts everyone in mortal danger. Newsom and other privileged Democrats wield their inordinate power recklessly, destroying countless small businesses while sating their gourmet appetites on the finest food the monied can buy.

When I refer to “alarmist claims,” I’m not suggesting that the Wuhan Red Death is not alarming or that the death rate is not tragic. I’m suggesting that the claims of leftists about the virus are alarmist in that they are not balanced by either the inclusion of all relevant statistics or by a modicum of humility about what is known about treatment and prevention.

For example, while leftists blame Wuhan virus spikes on the evil mask-questioners who walk among us purportedly like Grim Reapers, they rarely if ever discuss the worldwide Wuhan spikes in countries with more stringent lockdown and mask mandates.

When areas lock down, virus infections stall. When lockdowns end, virus infections increase. But we can’t afford the social, psychological, physical, and economic consequences of locking down forever.

Rational people understand that a contagion like the Wuhan virus will spread. What is needed are good therapeutics and herd immunity achieved via a combination of infections and vaccines. Social distancing for those most at risk of serious complications and/or death is wise. Social distancing for healthy people under 60, school closures, and business lockdowns are foolhardy at minimum and downright dangerous for many people.

While COVID-infected people should mask if they must go out, evidence that widespread masking of healthy people prevents COVID is scanty. According to the New York Times, a recent, large, randomized study out of Denmark provides evidence for what many have been saying:

The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant.

Lead author of the study, Dr. Henning Bundgaard, stated that his study indicated that “not a lot” is gained “from wearing a mask.”

Perhaps it’s past time for political leaders to abandon mask mandates for children and healthy adults under 60. And surely, it’s past time for the mask-obsessed among us to stop verbally attacking those who choose not to mask as irresponsible, ignorant, uncaring, selfish, evil killers.

As the nightmarish 2020 draws to a close, there are reasons for optimism. President Trump’s Operation Warp Speed has  resulted in the development of not one but two highly effective vaccines at warp speed. As of this writing, both Moderna and Pfizer have developed vaccines that are about 95% effective, and evidence suggests that vaccine-induced immunity may last years and be more effective than immunity that develops from contracting COVID-19.

So, we have reasons to believe that in a few months, life will be able to return to normal. In the meantime, school closures must end. There has never been any science suggesting that schools should have closed. If children contract COVID-19, the statistical likelihood that they will survive is 99.99998%.

Annually, about 4,000 children die in car accidents with 630 of those being 12 or younger; 800 children drown; and in the 2019-2020 flu season, 188 children died. So far about 130 children have died from COVID-19. Anytime leftists want to impose a restriction on the freedom of others, they ask, “Isn’t saving the life of even one person worth the sacrifice?” So, are we going to prohibit all children from riding in cars except for essential activities? Are we going to prohibit all children from swimming in pools, ponds, lakes, rivers, and oceans? Are we going to close schools every year during flu season? If not, why not?

Those parents whose children live in homes with at-risk family members can choose to keep their children home. Those teachers who are in an at-risk group can stay home. But all schools should open. Even leftist New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof recently and grudgingly admitted that Trump has long been right on school closures:

Trump has been demanding for months that schools reopen, and on that he seems to have been largely right. Schools, especially elementary schools, do not appear to have been major sources of coronavirus transmission, and remote learning is proving to be a catastrophe for many low-income children. …

Democrats helped preside over school closures that have devastated millions of families and damaged children’s futures. … In both Europe and the United States, schools have not been linked to substantial transmission, and teachers and family members have not been shown to be at extra risk. …  Meanwhile, the evidence has mounted of the human cost of school closures.

Leftists have provided ample evidence of their poor judgment, their Faustian willingness to abandon principles to acquire power, their Machiavellian abuse of power to circumscribe liberty, their hypocrisy, and their elitism. We better hope Americans awaken from their “woke” stupor before it’s too late.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Newsom-and-Lightfoot-and-Brown-Oh-My.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.