Written by Dr. Richard D. Kocur

“To infinity and beyond!” In November of 1995, the first of four blockbuster animated films in the Toy Story franchise was released by Walt Disney Pictures to both audience and critical acclaim. With Toy Story, astute businesspeople at the Walt Disney Company created a cash-cow franchise capable of producing revenue for years to come by creating and delivering a product that appealed to their target audience of parents and children. Unfortunately, the Walt Disney Company’s leap from a business focused on producing broadly appealing content to a business exemplifying the latest version of woke corporate activism, redefining the nature and use of a company’s products, has taken the company to the height of stupidity and beyond.

Disney is a long-time part of the landscape, literally and figuratively, in the state of Florida. The company’s 2020 annual report indicates that of Disney’s 203,000 global employees, nearly 40% are in the state of Florida; and a small but vocal minority of those Florida cast-members are not happy.

On March 28, 2022, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill (HB) 1557, Parental Rights in Education. According to the governor’s website, the bill, “reenforces parents’ fundamental rights to make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children.” The bill also, “prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through 3^rd grade and prohibits instruction that is not age appropriate for students.” The Walt Disney Company disagrees.

Let that sink in.

Disney, a company whose legacy was built on producing entertainment for parents and their children, disagrees. After a small group of employees threw a tantrum normally akin to an exhausted six-year-old waiting in line for a turn to ride Dumbo the Flying Elephant, Disney’s CEO Bob Chapek surrendered. The company issued a statement on Twitter stating, “Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts.”

While the drift of companies towards activism in social causes is not new, Disney’s stated goal for this piece of legislation not only runs counter to what should be the goal of any publicly traded business—i.e., to create value for its shareholders—but crosses a line into territory that runs counter to rational business thought.

Organizations like Coca-Cola, Delta Airlines, Meta, and Major League Baseball have all taken public stances on social issues. These stances have alienated wide segments of their customers based solely on differences in political viewpoint. Through it all, the products or services of these companies remained neutral. The ingredients of Coca-Cola were not altered in an effort to promote the company’s social agenda. In Disney’s case, however, its stance on the Florida bill has the potential to alienate many of the organization’s core customers (parents) precisely because the product will no longer be neutral. Vocal Disney employees indicated in leaked internal meeting videos that the portrayal of Disney characters in television and film will be a vehicle for the promotion of LGBTQ+ lifestyles and identities. In other words, Disney’s products will no longer be neutral but will be directed to serve a social agenda.

Disney’s activism is a bridge too far even in the current day of woke corporations. Making donations to activist groups or voicing support for social justice or climate change is one thing, but using platforms designed to provide entertainment for children—children—to promote alternative lifestyles is a new layer of the woke stratosphere.

What are the potential consequences? Maybe nothing. But maybe a substantial number of parents will see Disney’s actions for what they are, an attempt to supplant parental control over what values are taught to their children and by whom. Maybe the forces of the free market will spring into action and new entertainment options will emerge to fill the market void left by Disney. And maybe, like Buzz Lightyear who mistakenly believed his wings would carry him to infinity and beyond, Disney will realize that forcing extremist values and ideals upon its customers simply will not fly.

This article was originally published at The Institute for Faith & Freedom at Grove City College, where Dr. Richard D. Kocur is an assistant professor of business. Dr. Kocur specializes in marketing and business strategy and has over 25 years of experience in the healthcare industry. 

Written by Kay C. James

As a Black woman who grew up in the segregated South, I’m shocked and appalled with the race-baiting from mostly White left-wing politicians who are throwing around the “Jim Crow” label to score political points in the debate over strengthening our voting laws.

To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen’s line from the 1988 vice presidential debate with Dan Quayle: I knew Jim Crow. Jim Crow was no friend of mine. And these common-sense voting laws that states are adopting are no Jim Crow.

Frankly, it’s insulting that politicians are trying to manipulate Black folks like me into thinking that voting reforms that actually protect our right to vote are somehow racist. It’s insulting to be lied to, and — yes, I’m going to say it — it seems awfully racist to be thought of as so ignorant and gullible.

These state election reforms are about one thing—making it easier for American citizens to vote, while making it harder for cheaters to cheat.

Yet everyone from President Joe Biden to The New York Times to Coca-Cola and those in Hollywood are labeling voting reforms adopted in Georgia and other states as voter suppression and the new Jim Crow. There’s even a U.S. Senate hearing this week being held around this lie called, “Jim Crow 2021: The Latest Assault on the Right to Vote.”

Growing up as a Black teenager during the 1960s, I knew the tremendous sacrifices and the dangers that my friends and relatives endured to secure the right to vote for Black Americans. I myself was part of the Civil Rights Movement when I was thrust into an effort to desegregate my middle school in Richmond, Va.

So let me be perfectly clear: I have zero interest in disenfranchising or suppressing the vote of any portion of the population.

But that’s not what’s happening in Georgia or other states pursuing election reforms. And don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

As we’ve heard from the few truth tellers there are in the media, the new Georgia election reform doesn’t discourage voting or suppress votes. In fact, the availability of absentee ballots and early voting is a lot more robust than what it is in most “blue” states.

And Georgia provides a free voter ID to people without ID and has exceptions that mirror federal law. Turnout in the state as well as studies also show that ID requirements don’t suppress votes; and polling shows that voters, including Black voters, agree that voter ID is a common-sense reform. Claims that Black people are somehow unable or unwilling to obtain identification are insulting and have no basis in fact.

“You know what’s racist? Assuming because I’m black that ‘I just don’t have the capability of getting an I-D,’” Rep. Burgess Owens recently tweeted. I couldn’t agree more.

So why is the left calling these reforms racist? It’s a scare tactic and an attempt to rally support for a voting bill currently in Congress ironically called the For the People Act, or H.R. 1.

H.R. 1 would create a federal takeover of elections and force changes to election laws that would actually allow for greater fraud and election tampering. It would diminish the very voting rights that my relatives in the 1960s, the women suffragists of the early 1900s, and the men and women of the armed forces throughout our history fought so hard to gain and protect.

Under H.R. 1, no one has to prove they are who they say they are in order to vote. It’s likely to automatically add ineligible individuals like non-citizens to the voter rolls. And it outlaws or restricts safeguards that help states maintain accurate voter rolls to prevent people from voting twice. In other words, it would allow illegal votes to cancel out our legal ones.

And that’s just scratching the surface of this terrible law.

H.R. 1 isn’t for the people; it’s about creating more power for certain politicians. The people who support this bill expect that most illegal votes will favor left-wing politicians, and they are willing to dilute our legal votes by encouraging more illegal ones.

They are lying and calling common-sense voter protections racist to make people think that there is a groundswell of voter suppression coming from the states so that they can pretend to save us all with H.R. 1. But they aren’t really interested in protecting us; all they are interested in is helping themselves.

The right to vote is one of the most sacred rights that we as free citizens can exercise. That’s why we must protect it and not allow politicians to get away with pushing sinister bills like H.R. 1 that would diminish that right.

Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our republic, and every citizen — no matter their color, ethnicity, background or political persuasion — must be able to trust the voting process and its results.

The very future of a free nation depends on it.

Kay C. James is president of The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).
This article was originally published by the Washington Times.

Let’s join USA Today and Fox News for a short, illuminating stroll down memory lane:

2001: Following the Bush vs. Gore election in 2000, “Members of the Congressional House Black Caucus spent 20 minutes objecting as they sought to block Florida’s 25 electoral votes” from being certified for George Bush.

2005: “In the joint meeting of Congress to certify Bush’s win over Democrat John Kerry, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, received a Senate signature to object to the electoral votes from Ohio. It came from Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. The two Democrats raised concerns about voting irregularities.” (emphasis added)

At that time, Illinois’ corrupt senator Dick Durbin said,

Some may criticize our colleague from California for bringing us here for this brief debate. I thank her for doing that because it gives members an opportunity once again on a bipartisan basis to look at a challenge that we face not just in the last election in one State but in many States.

And Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) issued a statement saying,

I believe that Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) have performed a very valuable public service in bringing this debate before the Congress. As Americans, we should all be troubled by reports of voting problems in many parts of the country.

But that was then, and this is now, and now Durbin describes Senator Josh Hawley’s similar effort as “The political equivalent of barking at the moon. This won’t be taken seriously, nor should it be.”

Van Hollen harrumphed faux-indignantly,

Sen. Hawley’s actions are grossly irresponsible. He’s attempting to undermine our democratic process, fuel Trump’s lies about voter fraud, and delay the certification of Biden’s win.

While Van Hollen described the efforts of Boxer and Tubb Jones as a “very valuable public service,” he calls Hawley’s efforts a “reckless stunt.”

Please take special note that Durbin, Van Hollen, and many other leftists and some RINOs are focusing their laser beams of destruction on Hawley even though other Republicans in Congress objected to the vote-certification process. Is that just because Hawley was going to be the central spokesperson articulating the constitutional issue raised by peculiar electoral mischief that took place in Pennsylvania—an issue that mild-mannered, non-insurrectionist Byron York described as “a fundamental issue that is important to all 50 states”?

Or could it have something to do with Hawley’s singular and bold attack on the outrageous Big Tech monopolies and on social media tyrants’ Section 230 protections?  According to CNBC “About 98% of political contributions from internet companies this cycle went to Democrats,” and that 98% constitutes millions of persuasive dollars.

2017: Following the 2016 win by Trump, “Half a dozen Democratic House members raised formal objections to the Electoral College vote count. … The objections were based on Russian election interference, allegations of voter suppression or what Democrats considered to be illegal votes cast by Republican members of the Electoral College.”

Now, when Senators Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz pursue the same constitutional procedure that Democrats have pursued three times, Congress-despots call for their expulsion from Congress, and the House Homeland Security Committee Chair, U.S. Representative Bennie Thompson, suggests they might be placed on the no-fly list once reserved for terrorists.

Democrats who unjustifiably whine that Hawley and Cruz were trying to subvert the electoral process have been weirdly silent about Twitter’s effective effort to subvert the electoral process by censoring the Hunter Biden/Joe Biden/China collusion story. And these hypocritical Democrats say nothing about Facebook’s and Google’s wildly successful algorithmic efforts to subvert the electoral process.

AOC and other leftist members of Congress have been demanding Silicon Valley autocrats get rid of the chief threat to “progressive” political hegemony by cancelling the upstart Parler, which serves as the neutral platform that Twitter and Facebook falsely claim to be.

Leftists in Congress argued that Parler had to be silenced because of the role it played in the Capitol attack. But liberal journalist Glenn Greenwald discovered that Twitter, Facebook, and Google-owned YouTube played a far more significant role in promoting the riot. To date, no member of Congress has demanded they be shut down. Greenwald writes,

The Capitol breach was planned far more on Facebook and YouTube. As Recode reported, while some protesters participated in both Parler and Gab, many of the calls to attend the Capitol were from YouTube videos, while many of the key planners “have continued to use mainstream platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.” …

So why did Democratic politicians and journalists focus on Parler rather than Facebook and YouTube? Why did Amazon, Google and Apple make a flamboyant showing of removing Parler from the internet while leaving much larger platforms with far more extremism and advocacy of violence flowing on a daily basis?

In part it is because these Silicon Valley giants — Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple — donate enormous sums of money to the Democratic Party and their leaders, so of course Democrats will cheer them rather than call for punishment or their removal from the internet. Part of it is because Parler is an upstart, a much easier target to try to destroy than Facebook or Google. And in part it is because the Democrats are about to control the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress, leaving Silicon Valley giants eager to please them by silencing their adversaries.

Smelling the conservative chum in the water, corporate America has joined the congressional and Big Tech lefties’ feeding frenzy, cutting off all donations to any of the 147 Republican Congresspersons who contested the certification of election results. Here’s the list—so far—of the companies with conservative blood dripping from their lips:

Airbnb, Amazon, American Express, AT&T, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Comcast, Commerce Bank, Dow Chemical, Marriott, Mastercard, and Verizon.

They’re shutting down donations to any Republican who opposed certification—even if those Republicans did what Democrats have done in prior elections and even with no evidence that they supported, endorsed, or incited either violence or an insurrection.

The Walt Disney Corporation, Ben & Jerry’s, Coca Cola, and JP Morgan rightly issued statements of condemnation of the Capitol building assault. I’ve been searching the Internet far and wide, but I can’t find similar statements from corporate America during or following the lawless BLM riots that caused billions of dollars of damage and included destruction of federal property, harassment of members of Congress, direct assaults on police officers and police precincts, and the looting and arson of scores of businesses.

Oh wait, I remember now.  Corporate America issued statements of support for those riots and donated money to BLM.

Well, surely corporate behemoths issued condemnatory statements following these shocking words from Senator Chuck Schumer at a pro-human slaughter protest in October 2018:

I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

Sounds kind of like trying to subvert a judicial process. Has Hawley ever said anything even close to that?

Did corporate behemoths condemn Democrat U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal, who was arrested in June 2018 along with 630 other protesters at an illegal occupation of the Hart Senate Office Building? Thankfully, this lawlessness was led by women who are generally less likely to commit acts of violence—well, except for female BLM rioters who were recorded beating people up in the street riots of 2020.

Dishonest leftists argue ad nauseum that 1. private companies are entitled to make whatever decisions they want based on their corporate “principles,” 2. that the First Amendment doesn’t protect citizens from the consequences of their speech, and 3. that serfs customers who don’t like their corporate tyranny are “free” to take their business elsewhere.

The first point should be true and uncontroversial, but now the overriding operating principle of our soulless corporate behemoths that are vacuuming up America’s freedoms is a firm commitment to use their vast nearly unchecked power to impose destructive leftist ideologies everywhere.

Moreover, leftists don’t apply the principle of business freedom consistently. Leftists don’t really believe all businesses should be free to make business decisions in line with their principles.  Rather, leftists believe that businesses have the right to conduct business in line with their ethics as long as those ethics are pre-approved by leftists.

So, for example, teeny tiny Christian-owned businesses enjoy considerably less freedom than, say, the colossal Amazon. A Christian calligrapher is not permitted to refuse to make wedding invitations for a same-sex faux wedding based on her belief that homosexual acts and relationships are abhorrent to the God she serves.

The second point regarding consequences is completely true. Speaking freely does not guarantee freedom from consequences, and leftists are making sure those consequences include the inability to work in America or exercise one’s religion freely.

In a society controlled by corporate and Big Tech monopolies, only leftists are free to speak without fear of consequences. Conservatives face dire consequences for saying the very same things “progressives” say without fear of any consequences. Democrats can object to election certification, and they’re celebrated. Republicans object and they are accused of being insurrectionists, threatened with expulsion, and put on no-fly lists. Talk about a banana republic.

The third claim that conservatives are “free to take their business elsewhere” is false or will be soon if Americans don’t rise up in opposition to the tyranny of unelected corporate monopolists and Big Tech Overlords. If all corporate and Big Tech tyrants adopt the same unprincipled policies, conservative Americans will be unable to work, feed their families, exercise their religion, assemble, or speak in the public square.

If you know any honest leftists, ask them if they believe corporate behemoths should be free to fire or refuse to hire Americans who publicly say this election was unfair.

Ask them if they believe corporate behemoths should be free to fire or refuse to hire anyone who has publicly said homosexual acts are immoral and marriage is intrinsically sexually differentiated.

Ask them if they believe corporate behemoths should be free to fire or refuse to hire Americans who have publicly said persons born with healthy and properly functioning male anatomy are not and never can be women and don’t belong in women’s private spaces or sports.

What recourse do conservative, Constitution-respecting Republicans have left for fighting the dangerous collusion of Congress, corporate behemoths, and Big Tech monopolies to eradicate the First Amendment if the right to assemble and speak are in effect cancelled without even a public debate or vote?

See you in Siberia, my dissident friends.

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.

Last year at this time, 2ndVote scored Macy’s low partly because of its practice of donating to Planned Parenthood and matching donations from its employees – but 2ndVote spokesperson Robert Kuykendall has an update.

“Macy’s reached out to 2ndVote and told us that the company is no longer donating any kind of money to Planned Parenthood, the world’s largest provider of abortion,” he explains.

Since 2ndVote started scoring corporations, AT&T, Coca Cola, Ford, and Xerox also stopped funding the abortion conglomerate – and Kuykendall says that’s largely due to exposing the companies’ practices and urging consumers to apply pressure. But there’s more work to be done, he says.

“If you’re doing business with American Express, with Allstate, with Patagonia especially – Patagonia gives tens of thousands of dollars to Planned Parenthood every year – a portion of your dollars is going to the largest provider of abortion services,” he informs. “So we want people to be informed; and secondly, we want people to engage those companies.”

And that, he says, is by consumers voicing their concerns to the companies and spending their money elsewhere. That’s what 2ndVote is all about – the first vote is in an election, and the second vote is taking consumer spending away from offending corporations.

Read more about 2nd Vote HERE.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to urge your U.S. Representative to defund Planned Parenthood.

This article was originally posted at OneNewsNow.com

If you didn’t know who Dan Savage is, it’s probably a good thing. But right now we need you to familiarize yourselves with one of the cruelest, most vile political activists in America.

Why? Because ABC and Disney is airing a sitcom Dan Savage developed loosely based on his life.

A perusal of Dan Savage’s work reveals a career built on advocating violence — even murder — and spewing hatred against people of faith.

Savage has spared no one with whom he disagrees from his vitriolic hate speech. We have examples, but be warned, they are extremely graphic and offensive.

Watch this short Family Research Council video montage of Savage, and you’ll see just how despicable his actions are.

Despite his extremism, vulgarity, and unabashed encouragement of dangerous sexual practices, ABC’s newest sitcom with Savage as its executive producer is now airing on Tuesday evenings at 7:30 p.m. CT.

“The Real O’Neals” mocks Christianity and insults Catholicism. AFA recognizes this show ridicules people of faith, and Christians across America are offended by it.

It is almost impossible to describe the depth of depravity found in the sitcom “The Real O’Neals.” It is impossible to list them all, so here are a few scene descriptions from the show:

• Jesus appears where only the gay son can see and talk to Him, and He is annoyed by the mom’s strict guidelines for her family.
• The daughter steals money she is supposedly raising for charity.
• The daughter “attempts to prove” that there is no God in a science fair project.
• A statue of Mary is kept above the O’Neal’s toilet to remind the boys to put the seat down.
• The first jab at Jesus comes only 52 seconds into the first episode.
• The mother encourages her 16-year-old gay son to “try s-x” with a girl. (A dash ‘-‘ is used to bypass internet filters.)
• Vulgar language (ex. V-gina).
• The mom makes pancakes shaped like the face of Jesus to guilt trip her anorexic son into eating.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to sen an email to Lauren Thompson to let Simply Orange (Coca-Cola) know how disappointed you are to learn that they are spending corporate dollars to promote its products in association with the program “The Real O’Neals.”

You can also call them at: (800) 871-2653 to complain how they are using its advertising dollars to support anti-Christian bigotry and promoting animosity toward people of faith.

Written by Chris Walker

This past Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments for Obergefell v. Hodges in what is shaping up to be a landmark case in the national marriage debate. At issue are the questions of whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license marriages between two people of the same sex and whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to recognize marriages between two people of the same sex licensed and performed out-of-state.

By now, conservatives should be very familiar with an influential organization that has carried the banner for same-sex marriage advocacy, the Human Rights Campaign. However, many may be unaware of the powerful network of corporations that are involved with HRC’s longstanding push to overturn marriage laws in America.

2nd Vote has compiled a resource page that list the companies involved with HRC, as well as the companies advocating against traditional marriage laws. This page also includes a list of all the signers of the amicus brief and links to the language contained in the brief.

CLICK HERE to see the list of corporate sponsors.

In dissent of Windsor, Justice Antonin Scalia appears to have been eerily prescient in his criticism of the majority’s ruling when he wrote: By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Indeed, the ruling in Windsor gave groups like HRC a valuable rhetorical tool to enlist the support of major corporations to fund their agenda.

However, that agenda that we actually fund by doing business with many of these companies goes against our values on several levels. Recently, we have seen major corporations in Indiana eagerly joining the campaign to spread disinformation on laws protecting religious liberty. Perhaps just as concerning, we see the business alliance with HRC pushing for judicial activism that could threaten the very tenets of the legislative process and federalism.

Conservatives should inform themselves on the potential ramifications of Obergefell and hold these companies accountable for their advocacy that benefits their own self-interest, which the evidence shows is not constitutionalism, nor is it the defense of our most sacred social unit.

Chris Walker is the Executive Director of 2nd Vote, a conservative shopper app. To find out more, download the free app or visit 2ndVote.com. Originally posted at Redstate.com.