As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to play out across America and the world, many questions still remain about what life will look like moving forward. One much-debated topic, of course, has been education. Should schools open their doors or remain virtual? What might hybrid options look like? What safety procedures should be followed for in-person classes?

While those questions have been discussed in the public square, other decisions have been made by families in private. And one decision that many families have made is to begin homeschooling.

According to a report on a Gallup poll¹ released on August 25, the number of parents opting for homeschooling has doubled since 2019, from 5 percent to 10 percent. This ranks homeschooling as the second-most popular option this year, ahead of private, parochial, and charter schools. (Public school, of course, remains on top at 76 percent, but that’s down from 83 percent last year.)

This has the potential to represent a major change for education in America.

Of course, there are unanswered questions. Will these new homeschoolers continue homeschooling even if public schools return to a more normal condition in 2021? Will even more parents abandon public schools as the year progresses if outbreaks occur or safety measures such as masks and social distancing become too onerous? How will public schools (and policy makers) react to the decreased number of students?

It will be fascinating to see how these questions are answered as time goes by.

If the number of families opting for homeschooling continues to rise, it could mean decreased funding for public schools. It could also mean new efforts to woo families back to public school, or to add new regulations to the growing homeschooling community.

In the meantime, new homeschoolers would do well to get informed and connected. If you’re homeschooling here in Illinois, be sure to check out the Illinois Christian Home Educators website (iche.org) as well as HSLDA. Both sites will help equip you for this new journey.

As a homeschool advocate, I hope that many Christian families are turning to home education during this uncertain time. But I also hope that if you’re a new homeschooler, you’ll seriously consider the benefits beyond the pandemic. Homeschooling is a great choice no matter what’s happening in the public schools.

This, by the way, is an important point for even veteran homeschoolers to remember. Homeschooling shouldn’t be primarily a reaction to the negative influences of the government school system. It shouldn’t be a run from something, but to something. As homeschoolers, we have the opportunity to teach, instruct, and guide our children in an incredibly personal, hands-on way. That’s an inherently good thing no matter what is going on in the broader educational world.

If you’re a new homeschooler, allow me to offer a few words of advice:

• Get connected. Find other families either in person or online that you can connect with. Homeschooling doesn’t need to be a solitary journey.

• Educate yourself. There are plenty of resources for homeschooling parents to help you on your way. Books, magazines, e-newsletters, recorded conferences, etc. Educating yourself could also include finding a mentor—an experienced homeschooling parent who can answer questions and give you encouragement along the way.

• Don’t replicate public school at home. You have flexibility they don’t have in a formal school. Use it. That doesn’t mean you should throw out all routine, textbooks, etc., but it does mean you don’t need to be a slave to a model that was built for a classroom, not a home.

• Think about the positives. As I said a moment ago, homeschooling shouldn’t be a reaction to something negative in the school system (it might start that way, but it doesn’t have to stay that way). Watch for the blessings of homeschooling. Embrace them. Change your focus from avoiding the problems at school, to enjoying the blessings of home.

• Ask God for His help and blessing. We all need it. Homeschooling was His idea in the first place (check out Deuteronomy 6:6-7), and I believe He’s glad to help any Christian parent who is embracing their responsibility to oversee the education of their children in His ways.

¹Brenan, Megan, K-12 Parents’ Satisfaction With Child’s Education Slips, Gallup, August 25, 2020; (Accessed August 29, 2020.)

IFI recently held two important webinars to help better inform, equip, and encourage parents to make the move to home education. These webinars can be found on the IFI YouTube channel under the “Home Education” playlist tab. These videos are posted for anyone curious about homeschooling.

In our first webinar we featured three experienced homeschool mothers who address frequently asked questions about Illinois law and how to begin homeschooling.

The second video features Dr. Brian Ray, a leading researcher in the area of homeschool education. He is the president of the National Home Education Research Institute (nheri.org).

Beginning in March 2020, Americans have been forced to adjust to a “new normal.” Work, school, personal lives and even church have been disrupted for millions. The church issue is especially troubling, since religious belief and practice was the very first thing protected in our U.S. Constitution (the Bill of Rights):

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (The First Amendment).

Executive orders from governors across the nation have prohibited Christians from meeting in the same way they are used to, and from practicing their religion in the way to which they are accustomed. There is much that can be said about the legal ramifications of all of this, but I would like to focus on some “positive” angles from which we can consider this tragic turn of events.

Church is Not the Building

We have become conditioned to think of church as a place we go once or twice a week. We call ourselves “church-goers,” and tell our children to get ready to “go to church.” While we know the church is the people, not the four walls, the Covid-19 situation has forced us to take a fresh look at that reality. Suddenly, we have needed to find new and creative ways to connect.

Most Churches Are not Like American Churches

In many parts of our world, Christians do not have the luxury of going to an air-conditioned building, sitting on padded seats, and watching slick Power Point videos to go along with their high-tech worship and 20-minute sermons. Often Christians walk miles on foot, sit on hard floors, and listen to sermons for many hours. Often they do this because of financial poverty that permeates their area, or, in some cases, even fear for their lives.

Persecution

We should remember that the religious liberty we enjoy in our country is unprecedented in nearly 2,000 years of church history. In most eras, and in most geographical locations, Christians have been a suppressed minority group (especially those who embrace doctrinal confessions like those held by American Evangelicals). Millions of Christ-followers around the world do not even own a Bible, while most of us have at least three or four in our homes (which in many cases are seldom even read). In countries like China and North Korea, being caught in secret church meetings can mean years of imprisonment and hard labor.

Diversify

Churches today are finding new, innovative ways to both communicate and meet. Since the Coronavirus mandates, I have heard from my local church via text, Facebook streaming, YouTube Live, emails, and posts in a special Facebook discussion group. But it hasn’t all been online communication. We have also received hand-written notes, phone calls, and personal visits from church members and church leaders to ensure we are doing okay.

During the lockdown, our church has, of course, conducted live-streamed videos, but we have also developed local neighborhood church meetings in backyards and homes, and outdoor events with larger gatherings. In many ways, these smaller home-based and outdoor gatherings are closer to what the rest of the world often does for their church assemblies.

While I understand the desire many of us have to simply return to normal church meetings in our buildings, perhaps we are being awakened to the need to explore new ways to connect as the church than just regular Sunday services.

If, Heaven forbid, religious persecution hits American churches, it would be wise to consider ways to decentralize and have options for people to continue to meet and be the church in smaller and more flexible settings.

Church at Home

As families have met at home, sometimes by themselves, I’m sure many parents have wondered how they can get their children more engaged. When children are used to being in a special class for children their own age, sometimes it is hard to get them to focus and pay attention to sermons or longer meetings geared for adults.

My wife and I have ten children and we’ve always wanted to help them to learn to sit during regular church services. We have a daily Bible time together each day. It usually lasts about 15-30 minutes. We read the Bible together, sing a song or two, and pray. It’s a simple process, but we have learned that having some kind of sit-still time every day, from the time our children are born, has produced the effect that our children are able to sit through an entire church service, with the adults, from the time they are three years old.

Ultimately, it is up to us as parents to take responsibility for the spiritual development of our own children. We are thankful for the assistance and support of others in our local church, but God gave our children to us. We need to ensure they learn God’s word and hide it in their heart. Perhaps the benefits of fathers working from home more often can help us begin a new trend of taking time each day to center our family around the Bible and prayer.

While the impact of many executive orders has had a negative outcome on so many fronts, where there is a challenge there is also an opportunity. Let’s be praying that we can discern how to use this time to make important shifts, both at home and corporately, that could end up making us all stronger on the other side of this situation.

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

The President of the United States and America’s most popular talk-show host both blasted the public-school system for indoctrinating U.S. children with anti-American propaganda. The mayhem and destruction being seen in the streets right now, they explained, is a direct result of this subversive indoctrination masquerading as education.

Both leaders agreed: The deadly lies being taught to children in government schools across America must end if the nation is to be salvaged. And Trump, at least, seemed confident that the days of “far-left fascism” running rampant in America’s schools an culture were numbered. Limbaugh also said the brainwashing would have to be reversed.

By speaking out, the dynamic duo — two of the most influential men not just in America, but in the world — just gave a major boost to the American public’s understanding about the root of so many of the nation’s problems. As doctors understand well, having an accurate diagnosis is key to finding a cure.

However, even though both men have called for Americans to save their own children from government schools (or at least “failing government schools,” as Trump put it earlier this year), neither leader spent much time on actual mechanics for a solution. Still, just talking about it at the national level is a crucial start to eventually getting a solution.

Speaking at Mount Rushmore on July 3 in honor of America’s Independence Day, Trump put it this way: “The violent mayhem we have seen in the streets of cities that are run by liberal Democrats, in every case, is the predictable result of years of extreme indoctrination and bias in education, journalism, and other cultural institutions.”

He was right, of course, as FreedomProject Media has been documenting for years. Trump also delved into the nature of that brainwashing. “Against every law of society and nature, our children are taught in school to hate their own country, and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes, but that they were villains,” he said, adding that the goal was to destroy America.

Responding to the fact that there are still a significant number of Americans who believe the fake-media narrative, talk-radio titan Limbaugh, who reaches an estimated 15 million listeners per day, was even bolder. He said on air after Trump’s speech that the reason for the ignorance and anti-American hatred was simple: Government-school indoctrination by radical leftists.

“We’ve lost teachers. We have lost public education, not to mention academe. We have lost higher education,” Limbaugh said. “We have a bunch of left-wing activists disguised as teachers who have literally been, for almost two generations now, poisoning with hatred and vile racism the innocent, young-skulls-full-of-mush students who show up in their classrooms — and that’s what we’re gonna have to reverse ultimately.”

Limbaugh spoke out again on July 8, saying the nation’s problems could be traced back to the indoctrination of children (and future journalists) in government schools. And last year, he declared that one of the answers to the crisis was homeschooling and removing children from public schools. Numerous other top leaders have made similar pleas.

In his 2020 State of the Union speech, Trump called for saving children from what he described as “failing government schools.” And on the campaign trail in 2016, he blasted the “indoctrination” of America’s youth by “progressive” bureaucrats at the U.S. Department of Education. This is major progress in exposing the crucial problem facing America.

When some of the most powerful men in the world speak the truth clearly and passionately about the threat of government-school indoctrination to children and the nation, millions of people listen. A mass exodus from the public schools has begun. Already, the North Carolina state website to register for homeschooling has crashed due to exploding demand amid coronavirus.

Perhaps it is not too late to save America after all.

This article originally posted at FreedomProject.com

Written by Austin Scott Davies

Late last week, Illinois Circuit Court Judge Michael McHaney of Clay County ruled in a lawsuit that “all citizens of Illinois” are free from Governor J.B. Pritzker‘s tyrannical orders. This comes after arguably unethical tactics by the Illinois Attorney General to delay the case by trying to remove it to federal court, and the United States Department of Justice filing a Statement of Interest in the case in support of the lawsuit.

State Representative Darren Bailey (R-Louisville) prevailed in his Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts II and III of his lawsuit against Governor Pritzker on April 23, 2020. The judge granted the declaratory relief requested in those counts and ordered a final judgment on the merits against Pritzker.

The judge ruled that by law Gov. Pritzker’s emergency powers lapsed 30 days after he declared COVID-19 a disaster and that all of his orders after April 8, 2020 that relate to the COVID-19 “disaster” are void ab initio. That’s Latin for void when they were created. Pritzker had no authority to issue orders after April 8, and legally, all orders issued after that date never existed. The Emergency Management Agency Act, which Gov. Pritzker claimed gave him authority to issue perpetual decrees shuttering businesses and churches and authority to suspend countless civil liberties, states clearly that a governor only has certain emergency powers that can be exercised for no more than 30 days following the declaration of a disaster.

The court went on to rule that there is no authority in the Constitution for Pritzker to have ever ordered the restriction of people’s movement or to have ever ordered the forcible closure of any business.

The judge made clear that in Illinois only the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and local health departments have the authority to restrict movement or close a business. To restrict movement or close a business, IDPH and local health departments must act within the constraints of existing law to take each individual person or business to court and overcome an incredibly high burden of proof. If the department is merely trying to prevent the spread of a virus or isolate a person that’s not already sick, that burden of proof is nearly insurmountable.

Specifically, Section 2 of the IDPH Act (20 ILCS 2305) allows the IDPH and local health authorities to order quarantine and isolation and to close places to prevent the probable spread of a dangerous or infectious disease. However, these agencies cannot make such orders without a prior court order, or consent by the person or persons effected.

The only exception to this is if, in the “reasonable judgment of the agency” issuing the order, “immediate action is required to protect the public from a dangerously contagious or infectious disease.” In that event, they can make such orders on a temporary basis, lasting no longer than 48 hours.

If a department of health issues such an order, they are still required to either obtain your consent or a court order within 48 hours of doing so, unless the courts are unavailable or circumstances make it impossible to obtain a court order. Then, the orders can only stay in place until the agency can obtain the court order through reasonable means.

The courts, however, are not closed, and some county courts have even made new local rules making it clear that they are open for these types of cases. To obtain an order to quarantine, isolate, or close a place or business, the health department must prove to a court “by clear and convincing evidence . . . that the public’s health and welfare are significantly endangered by a person or group of persons that has, that is suspected of having, that has been exposed to, or that is reasonably believed to have been exposed to a dangerously contagious or infectious disease including non-compliant tuberculosis patients or by a place where there is a significant amount of activity likely to spread a dangerously contagious or infectious disease. The Department must also prove that all other reasonable means of correcting the problem have been exhausted and no less restrictive alternative exists.”

At such hearing, you have a right to be represented by an attorney of your choosing, or if you are “indigent,” the court will appoint counsel to represent you. The burden is on the government to prove why you should close, isolate, or be quarantined. You do not have to prove why you should keep your business open or move about without restrictions.

At the behest of Gov. Pritzker and prior to this ruling, the IDPH has come out with “guidelines” that are phrased as orders that require certain measures of quarantine, partial business closure, and isolation such as “social” physical distancing. None of these “guidelines” or orders are enforceable unless you consent to them, or a health department complies with the due process protections described above and obtains a court order.

Shortly after this ruling, Gov. Pritzker and mainstream “news” media led a disinformation campaign to deceive Illinoisans by suggesting that “Phase 4” is still in full effect because Gov. Pritzker prevailed in other lawsuits regarding these onerous orders. While it is true that some courts have ruled against other plaintiffs that have filed lawsuits against Gov. Pritzker that are related to his orders, none have made any ruling inconsistent with the ruling in State Rep. Darren Bailey’s lawsuit. The other lawsuits referenced by Pritzker and his cohorts made different legal claims against Pritzker, were not representative actions, and in no way limit or constrain Judge McHaney’s ruling that all citizens of Illinois are free from Pritzker’s unlawful orders. This ruling applies to the entire state of Illinois and not just Clay County in the Circuit Court where it was made.

What is really telling is that only Pritzker and his cohorts are engaging in the campaign of disinformation, continuing to try to compel compliance to his void orders by intimidation. The Illinois Attorney General’s Office will not comment or respond to questions regarding the ruling.

Since the relief granted was declaratory relief, or relief which declares the parties rights under law—the parties here being Gov. Pritzker and all citizens of Illinois—the remedy of contempt of court is not available to punish Gov. Pritzker for disregarding this ruling. Unlike an injunction, a declaratory judgment does not order a party to do something or refrain from doing something. The judgment in this case is, however, valuable, in that not only does it invalidate Gov. Pritzker’s orders, but it can also be used by any citizen of Illinois to sue Pritzker and other public officials that have unlawfully deprived them of their civil rights, and any that would continue to unlawfully deprive them of their civil rights in clear violation of this judgment and under color of law.

Pritzker has even reportedly claimed that the ruling was not a final judgment on the merits, yet the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, which represents Gov. Pritzker, stated their intent to file an appeal seeking to overturn the judgment. If the ruling was not a final judgment on the merits, it could not be appealed. Unless this judgment is appealed and overturned by an appellate court, any order made by Pritzker that purported to restrict people’s movement, forcibly close any business, and any order related to COVID-19 that he made after April 8, has indeed been declared void and no longer exists anywhere in the State of Illinois.

More:

Click HERE to listen to a 10 minute interview of attorney Thomas DeVore by WMAY radio host Greg Bishop for a clarification on what the Judge Michael McHaney means.

Austin Scott Davies is an attorney and founder of Midwest Legal Care , former prosecutor, and an active member of the Winnebago County Republican Party. He is also a board member for Concerned Citizens for America, a local chapter of Illinois Family Institute.

The information contained in this article is not legal advice and is for general information purposes only. Do not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information. Readers should contact an attorney to obtain advice with respect to any legal matter.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

It’s easy to look around at everything taking place in our nation today and get discouraged.

The coronavirus and related economic impact are lingering into the summer. Some states are experiencing record numbers of new cases, suggesting the fight could continue for some time.

The George Floyd killing and its aftermath have brought racial issues in America to the foreground once again. Although America has done a lot to move beyond the problems of our past in relation to race, there’s undoubtedly more that can be done. But we’ve also seen the unfortunate truth that some elements in our society will exploit such tragedies for their own purposes.

On top of that, we’re in the middle of an election year in which some of us see no good choices, at least at the top of the ticket. I know that’s a controversial statement to make, but for those who are concerned about both policies and personal character, both choices leave much to be desired.

As I said, paying attention to the news these days can be a recipe for discouragement if we’re not careful.

Where does all of this leave us as God’s people living in troubled and changing times?

First, I think it’s important to remember what hasn’t changed. Amidst all the upheaval, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The word of God still stands. The promises of God are still as reliable as ever. The blood of Jesus still saves.

No matter what happens around us, it’s good to know that our God is still faithful and we can still turn to Him as our ever present help in times of trouble.

Our calling also hasn’t changed. As God’s people, we have two fundamental responsibilities that are true for every child of God.

First, we’re all called to walk faithfully with God in an ever-deepening relationship with Him. That stays the same regardless of our external circumstances.

Second, we’re called to be fruitful in good works. This can include anything from sharing the gospel with the lost, to delivering a meal to a shut-in, to mowing an elderly neighbor’s lawn, to volunteering at a soup kitchen, to raising our own children for Christ, to a thousand other possibilities. Times change, but God’s people are always called to love and serve others.

Putting these two callings another way, we’re to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Those are the universal commands that apply to all of us at all points in history, good or bad.

There’s no doubt that we live in complicated times with some complicated issues to examine. How God’s people interact with those issues and how we work to solve problems within our culture are questions we’ll most likely all need to wrestle with at one level or another.

But I’d like to draw our attention (mine included) to one more truth that is unchanging: this earth is not our ultimate home. For those of us who have believed on Christ, we look forward to a better home. We look forward to a time when all the hurts and sufferings and injustices of this world will be put aside and we’ll live forever in a perfect place called heaven.

That doesn’t mean we don’t work to solve problems now. It doesn’t mean we don’t try to alleviate suffering, fight against injustice, and stand up for what’s right while we’re still inhabitants of this earth. Indeed, those things are part of loving God and our neighbor. But when the darkness seems more powerful than the light, when wrong seems to triumph over right, it’s good to be reminded that there is something beyond what we see and experience in this world cursed by sin. One day the curse will be removed and we’ll rejoice with Him forever.

For those of us who are interested in politics, it’s easy to look for political solutions to the problems of our times. And lest I be misunderstood, let me say that I think it’s appropriate for God’s people to be involved in government with a view toward enacting policies that honor God and allow His people to lead the quiet, peaceable lives Paul speaks of.

But if there’s one drawback to our representative form of government, it’s that once every four years, many of God’s people seem to forget Who is really in control and instead look to man for the answers. We think that if only such-and-such a candidate is elected, victory will be ours. The curse will be lifted and God’s kingdom will advance.

But let’s not forget where our true hope lies: not in the halls of governmental power, but in Jesus Christ.

I know it’s easier said than done when the headlines are filled with gloom, but let’s focus on loving God and loving our neighbor. Do the work God has called you to do, whatever that might be. Walk with God each day and be fruitful in good works.

And remember that Christ has won the victory.

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

Written by Jerry Newcombe

Dr. Richard Land once called our country, “the divided states of America.” How apt — especially when we survey the various responses to the coronavirus. They are lessons in liberty and lessons in tyranny.

To paraphrase what a friend of mine wrote me recently, “We have 50 real-world government examples of liberty or tyranny — 50 real-time experiments in whether state governments moved towards liberty (as in Texas and South Dakota) or absolute control (as in California, Michigan and New York).” As a resident, I would add: Florida’s leadership is doing a great job.

Churches Closed, Planned Parenthood Open

Nowhere can this contrast be better seen than in how the state authorities deal with churches versus how they deal with abortion, ordering churches closed while deeming Planned Parenthood and other abortionists “essential services.”

How fitting. In her classic book, Godless, Ann Coulter postulates that abortion is the left’s “sacrament.” The sacraments of the church are out. The left’s new sacrament is in. The most pro-abortion leaders are the ones who are most cracking down on real constitutional freedoms in their states. If a politician gets abortion wrong, they tend to get everything else wrong too.

This anti-religious spirit at work is exceedingly ironic because America was born as a religious nation. In the Mayflower Compact, the Pilgrims explained their reason for coming: “For the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith.”

Our First Amendment declares our first freedom — freedom of religion. The founders stipulated there would be no national denomination and there would be no prohibition on the “free exercise” of religion. They didn’t add, “except in times of pestilence.”

“No Pandemic Exception to the Bill of Rights”

Indeed, Attorney General William Barr sides with the churches (following social distancing guidelines, etc.) in this conflict. He said, “There is no pandemic exception to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.”

But many of the left today have used the pandemic crisis to try and shut down a lot of religious services:

• The mayor of Kansas City, Missouri was demanding that churches hand over a list of anyone who attended any of their services. When Mat Staver and Liberty Counsel threatened to sue, the city backed down.

• The governor of Illinois postulated that church services may need to be banned for a year. This is the same governor who prohibited residents in his state from traveling — while apparently his wife vacationed in Florida.

• Overzealous administrators have sought to ban churches even from holding “drive-in” church services, which follow the mandates to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

If your church parking lot permits, holding a drive-in service is a clever way to worship the Lord together. Usually, the pastor would preach to the congregation in their cars though a low frequency on the FM dial in such services.

“A Lesson to Governors”

But even in the Bible belt, such as in Kentucky and Mississippi, some overzealous administrators have tried to shut such services down. First Liberty Institute has threatened lawsuits, and the cities have relented.

The Wall Street Journal had an editorial entitled, “Caesar, God and the Lockdowns,” in which they note, “A federal court ruling on religious liberty is a lesson to governors.”

The editorial talks about Maryville Baptist Church in Louisville, which held a modest Easter service — with some worshipers inside and others in the parking lot, hearing the service through a loudspeaker.

To harass the worshipers, notes the WSJ, “The police took down license-plate numbers. The church sued.”

A panel on the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the church: “It’s not always easy to decide what is Caesar’s and what is God’s — and that’s assuredly true in the context of a pandemic. … Why is it safe to wait in a car for a liquor store to open but dangerous to wait in a car to hear morning prayers?”

The Left-Right Divide in Leadership

A new report out of Chicago over the weekend shows the lengths to which the anti-God forces will go. Wirepoints observes that the mayor sought to punish a church, Philadelphia Romanian Church, to prevent it from holding services. They stated, “On Sunday morning the tow trucks descended — not just on churchgoers, but on residents and everybody else, and on a private lot used by parishioners.”

The pastor of the church said, “The mayor is inciting hate against the church which is very sad. A lot of our members risked their lives to escape Communism, only to find it germinating in 2020 under Mayor Lightfoot in Chicago.” Lori Lightfoot is so committed to abortion rights, she helped drive out of office one of the last Democrat, pro-life U. S. Congressmen.

Wirepoints adds, “It should also be a clarion call to the churches across the city as to how far the left will go to crush the faithful of all denominations.”

Freedom-loving Americans can look at a map of the country and see how those on the left versus those on the right are delicately handling the crisis. The abortion-loving, church-hating politicians stand in great contrast with their freedom-loving counterparts in the red states.

Jerry Newcombe, D.Min., is a senior producer and an on-air host for D. James Kennedy Ministries. He has written or co-written 32 books, such as The Unstoppable Jesus Christ, American Amnesia: Is American Paying the Price for Forgetting God?, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? (with D. James Kennedy) and the bestseller, George Washington’s Sacred Fire (with Peter Lillback). Learn more at jerrynewcombe.com and follow him on Twitter @newcombejerry.

Written by Peter Heck

In mid-March, Politico ran a series of short essays from “experts” on how coronavirus would change the world permanently. If you’re curious why I designate them as “experts” rather than experts, the authorities they assembled consisted of a cadre of college professors, including commentator Tom Nichols. Predictably, Nichols spent the majority of his time taking hyperbolic hate shots at the president, like this:

The colossal failure of the Trump administration both to keep Americans healthy and to slow the pandemic-driven implosion of the economy might shock the public enough back to insisting on something from government other than emotional satisfaction.

As tempting as it might be, I encourage you not to roll your eyes and ignore those words, because buried inside that little treasure chest of rage is a very revealing assumption. Specifically look how Nichols blames the president and his administration for failing “to keep Americans healthy.” Are we content with accepting that as a reasonable expectation to place on the federal executive branch?

Others in the Politico feature would seem to be. Margaret O’Mara, a professor of history at the University of Washington, predicted,

Not only will America need a massive dose of big government to get out of this crisis…but we will need big, and wise, government more than ever in its aftermath.

And University of Maryland’s associate professor of government and politics could barely contain her glee at the prospect:

The Reagan era is over. The widely accepted idea that government is inherently bad won’t persist after coronavirus … It is no longer “terrifying” to hear the words “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” In fact, that is what most people are desperately hoping to hear right now.

Is it? I guess I’m skeptical. Though polls continue to show the majority of Americans are hesitant about lifting the lock-downs and returning to life as usual, the devil may be in the details. What does “as usual” mean, precisely?

Though hardly a representative sample, the majority of Americans I observe are content with accepting the advice and recommendations from government officials regarding hand-washing, face-touching, social distancing, and even face masks. But that contentment quickly runs out when advice and recommendations turn into lock-downs, stay-at-home orders, and forced business closures.

That’s why I think good sense would stop short of making hope-filled predictions like these left-leaning college professors are wont to do. What actually seems likely is that coronavirus is going to renew the civilization-old debate over the role that government should take in our lives.

Perhaps Americans will be enthralled with the sound wisdom of the CDC and their “don’t wear masks, wait, on second thought do wear masks, and actually, if you don’t wear a mask you’re a public enemy” advice. Maybe they’ll be convinced that our freedoms should be determined month-to-month by task-force-created predictive models. Possibly we will all go for a new cabinet-level executive department that will tell us where we can travel and when.

Or maybe all this big government in people’s faces will backfire on the left-wing planners. After all, it’s one thing to accept these kinds of intrusions and disruptions temporarily, when there’s an immediate, self-evident purpose. It’s quite another to adopt them as permanent changes to our way of life.

In the end, it’s possible that much to the chagrin of Politico’s panel, America will be drawn back to the wisdom of her founding, expressed articulately in a recent tweet from libertarian presidential hopeful, U.S. Congressman Justin Amash:

Written by Dave Olsson

The coronavirus crisis of 2020 has exposed the dark underbelly of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the dangers of U.S. dependency on China. Not only was the CCP irresponsible in concealing the outbreak while allowing it to spread across the globe, but they also threatened to withhold pharmaceuticals so that America would be “plunged into the mighty sea of coronavirus.”

While that international confrontation is serious, the coronavirus has also exposed something else much closer to home and potentially as sinister. As our federal and state governments have reacted to the crisis with “stay-at-home” and “social distancing” directives, it’s revealed a disturbing willingness by some of our state and local authorities to impose orders on local churches that appear to violate their constitutional rights.

In Florida, a pastor was arrested and “charged with unlawful assembly and violation of a public health emergency order” after holding two Sunday services in violation of a safer-at-home order.

In Greenville, Mississippi, congregants were fined $500 each for attending drive-in services in the church parking lot where they kept their windows up and listened as the service was broadcast over the radio.

In Chincoteague Island, VA, a pastor was criminally charged “for violating Governor Northam’s COVID-19 Order 55” after holding a service with 16 people. Northam’s order limited gatherings to 10 people.

In Kansas City, MO, the plan for reopening the city included a requirement to record “names and contact information of attendees” during church services for possible “contact tracing” before it was walked back and made voluntary.

Here in Illinois, Governor J.B. Pritzker introduced a five-phase reopening plan that “gives guidance to schools, businesses, churches, and other religious centers.” Part of that guidance is that churches “will not be allowed to hold in-person services of more than 50 people until phase five, even if it takes more than a year to get to that position.”

Those are jarring examples of the government interfering in the life of the church. But none caught my attention like the one in Knox County, TN where local authorities took the dangerous step of decreeing what a church service could—and could not—include:

[T]he health department just announced that while churches may reopen on May 1, the Lord’s Supper is forbidden. The order was announced by Knox County Health Department Regional Hospital Coordinator Charity Menefee, who announced that Communion is not part of “core worship.”

The immediate question is, “Who is Charity Menefee and who gave her permission to determine what is or isn’t part of ‘core worship’ in the church?” It gets worse:

Not only that, but church attendees are also banned from physically embracing or shaking hands with one another. And singing, while not banned, “is discouraged as it is thought to be an activity that expels significantly more virus than talking.”

Got that? You may meet, but you may not sing, hug, shake hands or take communion. The order goes on to proscribe the use of hymnals, Bibles and offering plates and prohibits other activities that bring congregants together.

The civil authorities in Knox County are clearly operating outside their jurisdiction. Back in March, Douglas Wilson wrote about the nature and extension of civil government when it comes to the things of God:

In historic Presbyterian polity (all rise!), the civil magistrate had no authority in sacred things (in sacris), but he had definite authority surrounding sacred things (circa sacra). Put simply, the magistrate has no right to tell the church what to preach, how to pray, how to administer the sacraments, who to discipline, etc. That is not their assigned task. They need to stay in their lane.

But when it comes to questions of public safety (which is exactly what this is), preachers need to stay in their lane. It would be different if we were talking about a monastery with a bunch of recluse hermit monks, and the magistrate told them they couldn’t gather in their own chapel for prayers. That would be none of the magistrate’s business. But if great herds of Baptists head out to the Golden Corral after services, and they do this during the time of an epidemic, the magistrate has full authority and obligation to tell all of them “not so fast.” This is circa sacra.

There are so many areas where the church should be resisting statism, it would be shame to waste our powder on any issue where the state is acting well within its rights.

In Knox County, the state is most assuredly not “acting well within its rights.” While Charity Menefee rightly permits churches to reopen based on her authority “surrounding sacred things (circa sacra),” she violates the boundary separating church and state by assuming authority “in sacred things (in sacris).”

Menefee may not have done so with malice; in fact, she may have considered her directive magnanimous. But such a violation is still a violation—and a dangerous one at that because it is done in the name of “safety.”

The question, “You want others to be safe, don’t you?” acts like a sedative on us in which we drop our defenses as the natural impulse to care for others takes over. Of course we want others to be safe.

But that’s not the right question. The question is, “Whose domain?” The practice of communion is not based on whether it is considered “safe” to do so by civil authorities. Follow the progression of that thinking and in ten years communion will be declared “unsafe” because it reinforces religious dogma that increases the risk of perceived threats to some minority group.

No, communion is first and foremost based on the authority of Jesus Himself.

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. (1 Cor. 11:23-26)

More important for this discussion, the freedom to practice communion without government interference is grounded in the First Amendment, which protects religious belief and expression. With emphasis added, it reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

And in 1940, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Cantwell v. Connecticut that the Free Exercise Clause is enforceable against state and local governments. Menefee, then, is abusing her authority and violating her Christian citizens’ constitutional and God-ordained rights.

When it comes to the act of taking communion, the authority of the U.S. Constitution supersedes the authority of the Knox County Health Department Regional Hospital Coordinator. And the authority of Jesus Christ supersedes the authority of the U.S. Constitution, which protects our God-given right to worship as we see fit.

Fortunately, the Knox County Health Department removed the communion ban and other restrictions, instructing places of worship to “See State Guidance.” If such draconian restrictions return, the churches of Knox County must unite and issue a kind but firm rebuke to the local “magistrate,” making it clear that the encroachment on their civil and religious liberties will not go unchallenged.

The COVID-19 crisis won’t be the last time the local church faces off with civil authorities. While not every act of government interference with the church is illegal or unjustified, it is interference. All churches would be wise to think through how to respond. Even if the orders are legal and compliance is reasonable, such accommodation gives authorities a foot in the door. Be sure that agreeing to a modest request doesn’t lead to them barging all the way in.

This article is an expansion of a previous version published on DAVEOLSSON.COM.

A recent article written primarily by a medical doctor in Alabama claimed that, “The way in which the media has pushed fear nonstop amounts to psychological warfare against this country.” He added, “If it hasn’t occurred to you that we have heard one story and essentially one story alone for literally two months, well, that should have aroused suspicion.” Is this doctor correct? Or is the media doing its best to be responsible in the midst of an unprecedented crisis?

I’m quite confident that nothing I write here will influence what the media is doing for two reasons. First, who am I that massive media organizations should listen to me? Second, fear sells and money talks.

That being said, the question remains: Is the media responsible in its reporting, helping its audience to act wisely during a pandemic? Or is the media using fear tactics to get more viewers, listeners, and readers? And if the latter is true, does this amount to sustained psychological warfare?

Obviously, “the media” is such a generalized term that almost anything good or bad can be said about it. But if we focus on the major, secular voices on TV, we can fine tune both our questions and our answers.

One of the secrets of psychological warfare (called psywar by the military) is to try to convince enemy troops that surrender is sweet, that it is better to capitulate than to continue to fight, that defeat is inevitable.

In keeping with this, an Air Force colonel shared with me that during World War I, psywar pamphlets were airdropped among the German troops.

Shortly after the end of the war, Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, the Chief of Staff of the Kaiser’s Army, complained:

“In the shower of pamphlets which was scattered by enemy airmen our adversaries said and wrote that they did not think so badly of us; that we must only be reasonable and perhaps here and there renounce something we had conquered. Then everything would soon be right again and we could live together in peace, perpetual international peace. As regards peace within our own borders, new men and new Governments would see to that. What a blessing peace would be after all the fighting. There was, therefore, no point in continuing the struggle.” (From the USAF Special Operations School: Psychological Operations.)

And what were the results of this strategy? Military historian Stanley Sandler writes:

“As German Army discipline wavered or broke, these leaflets became responsible for defections on a large scale. Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler termed Allied military psywar ‘psychologically efficient.’”

Today, we are not having pamphlets dropped on us from the sky in order to break our spirits. But we are hearing a constant flood of bad news. Of distressing and depressing news. Of fearful statistics. And we are reminded daily of the danger of violating the status quo.

Does this mean that all these media outlets are ill-intentioned and motivated only by financial gain? Certainly not.

Does this mean that the talking heads all share a nefarious agenda and are under some hidden, central control? Not at all.

Does it mean that none of them are trying to do some good? Absolutely not.

But it does mean that, for whatever reason, we are basically being told that COVID-19 is the only story out there, that America is a real mess, and that things could get even worse in the days ahead.

Really now, is all of that meant to be helpful? Encouraging? Useful?

Or, to approach this from a different angle, ask yourself this: If the goal of the media was to help Americans function in a healthy and hopeful way during this difficult time, would their reporting be the same?

Doing a daily talk radio show, and with lots of interaction with the public on social media, I have been sounding a “fear not” message for the last two months. Yes, the virus is very serious, but it’s not the end of the world, and there’s no need for panic.

At the same time, I have had to counteract the attitude of fear and panic that arises by being subjected to day and night negative reporting. (Add in partisan politics, and you have a real toxic mix.) And in order to starve our fears and feed our faith and our practical wisdom, we cannot sit glued in front of the TV or computer screen.

But this is part of the vicious cycle of 24-hour news networks. The same stories get repeated endlessly, seriously undermining our ability to think for ourselves. Are we not getting brainwashed by it all?

But there’s another angle to consider, and that’s the angle of control.

Dennis Prager recently wrote that “the ease with which police state tactics have been employed and the equal ease with which most Americans have accepted them have been breathtaking.”

Could this have happened without the media’s incessant, fear-producing drumbeat?

Prager pointed to four principle signs of a police state, one of which was, “A Mass Media Supportive of the State’s Messaging and Deprivation of Rights.”

He explained,

“The New York Times, CNN and every other mainstream mass medium — except Fox News, The Wall Street Journal (editorial and opinion pages only) and talk radio — have served the cause of state control over individual Americans’ lives just as Pravda served the Soviet government. In fact, there is almost no more dissent in The New York Times than there was in Pravda. And the Big Tech platforms are removing posts about the virus and potential treatments they deem ‘misinformation.’”

Recently, YouTube removed a viral video by two medical doctors in California who disputed the state’s safety recommendations.

According to YouTube, “We quickly remove flagged content that violate our Community Guidelines, including content that explicitly disputes the efficacy of local healthy authority recommended guidance on social distancing that may lead others to act against that guidance.”

In other words, disputed opinions offered by medical doctors (in this case, emergency room doctors) will be banned.

Does this concern you? What might be banned next? Can you not assess the information for yourself and make an informed choice?

A colleague with a massive Facebook page (I can’t share more details at this moment) had a viral post removed because a so-called fact checker deemed it false. Yet the content was entirely spiritual in nature.

So, not only do we have the 24-hour droning drumbeat of fear-based, often sensationalistic reporting, but we have a dangerous form of censorship as well.

Does that constitute a form of psychological warfare? You can decide for yourself.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

My wife and I have noticed something interesting recently, and it’s one of the more visible—and positive—side effects of the coronavirus lockdown we’ve observed.

There’s a nature park just outside our town that I’ve been visiting for virtually my entire life. It boasts nearly 700 acres of woods, meadows, creeks, ponds, and trails. I spent countless hours there as a child and teen hiking, biking, and enjoying cookouts with my family.

I introduced my wife to the park even before we were married (she was from out of town), and now that we’re parents, we’ve introduced our children to it as well. Hiking the trails and playing in the creek have become two of their favorite things to do.

I say all of that to say this: I’ve been going to this park long enough to have a pretty good idea of the types of folks that usually hang out there. Typically it’s groups of young men using the disc golf course that occupies a portion of the park, solitary hikers and dog walkers, and occasionally a group of horseback riders from the stables on the edge of the park. It’s rare to see a family together.

Until recently.

Since we’ve all been in the coronavirus lockdown, my wife and I have seen a marked increase in the number of families out together at this particular park. I recently took my three oldest kids on a hike along one of the trails and saw three or four other families along the way.

That never used to happen.

And the best part? They actually looked like they were enjoying themselves.

They weren’t grumbling, griping, and fussing. Parents and children were actually out together in the middle of a nature park on a beautiful Saturday afternoon and enjoying themselves.

That might seem like a small thing, but again, I’ve visited this park long enough and often enough to know that this isn’t normal. Maybe it should be, but it’s not.

But for now it is. And I’m glad to see it.

The coronavirus lockdown has been controversial. The longer it stretches on, I’m sure the more controversial it will become. And don’t get me wrong—there are some legitimate issues that need to be discussed and worked out. Whether right now is the proper time to open things up or not, one thing is certain: we can’t continue this way indefinitely.

But while it lasts, I’m glad to see that some families are making good use of the time. They’re together. They’re getting out of the house in healthy ways. They’re doing things they may have rarely done together in times past—if they’ve ever done them at all. They’re not just glued to their screens in separate rooms of their homes.

I’m looking forward to the end of this. I think we all are. But while it lasts, let me encourage you to use the opportunity to do positive things together. If you already have been, congratulations! If not, it’s not too late to start.

With the weather improving, it’s a perfect opportunity to enjoy nature together as a family. Take a hike and don’t worry if your kids get dirty. Let them play in a creek and get soaked if they want to. Throw rocks. Watch the current carry sticks downstream.

According to an article posted last year on the Psychology Today website, time spent in nature is linked to reduced heart rate, blood pressure, and stress cortisol, and “improves psychological well-being.”

Who among us wouldn’t benefit from reduced stress and improved well-being at a time like this? And if your kids or teens are feeling the stress of the moment, you’ll be doing them a favor as well to plan some family time out in nature. Two hours a week is great, but shorter amounts are still bound to do you good.

God gave us a beautiful world, and it’s an extra blessing that time spent in His creation can be therapeutic to our frayed nerves and stressed minds. Whether it’s something as simple as sitting on a park bench, or a more involved expedition to the woods, time spent in more natural environments can be a boon to your health, both physical and mental.

So grab your kids and head out. You’ll all feel better for it.

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

It does make a difference.

On March 9, Governor J.B. Pritzker issued his first “stay-at-home” emergency Executive Order (EO). That was followed by another EO extending his stay-at-home order through April 30th. Then last week, Gov. Pritzker extended his stay-at-home order for another 30 days, through the end of May. If not extended again, that would constitute a total of 11 weeks of a lock-down for Illinois residents and businesses.

Since Illinois law only grants the governor emergency authority for a period of 30 days, the extensions of Gov. Pritzker’s “stay-at-home” order, which closes businesses and forbids church services and assemblies in excess of ten citizens, constitutes an overreach of executive authority. Thankfully, State Representative Darren Bailey (R-Louisville) took Gov. Pritzker to court over this very issue and won an important decision that may lead to a definitive strike-down of the governor’s dangerous precedent. In fact, Clay County Circuit Court Judge Michael McHaney was reported as saying that Gov. Pritzker’s “subsequent executive orders ‘shredded the Constitution.’” The governor has promised to appeal this decision, so it may not be resolved anytime soon.

Gov. Pritzker and state lawmakers need to hear from their constituents about the abuse of power and the infringement of our civil liberties.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Gov. Pritzker and your state lawmakers asking them to end the lock-down and restore our civil liberties. Consider pointing out that our First Amendment rights to freely exercise our religion and to assemble in our churches are essential.

Background

In fairness to Gov. Prizker, the state’s initial response was part of his administrative effort to slow the spread of the disease and “flatten the curve” of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Yet over the past 6 weeks we have learned a lot about the COVID-19 pandemic. For one thing, the initial government predictions of hospitalizations and deaths were wrong. Thank God that these projections have been repeatedly revised downward but, unfortunately, not before contributing to the incitement of great fear and anxiety.

In Illinois, we have not come close to exceeding hospitalization and healthcare capacity. An excellent article by Wirepoints provides evidence of the adequacy of ICU bed capacity and ventilator availability.

Three weeks ago, Governor Pritzker stood before the media complaining about the Trump administration and our great need for ventilators, ICU beds, and other medical equipment. He was wrong. Illinois didn’t use half of the available ventilators and only two-thirds of available hospital beds.

The facts that have emerged over the past few weeks do not warrant Gov. Pritzker’s extended “stay-at-home” order. So, it is not surprising that his announced plans to extend the Illinois lock-down through the end of May is provoking a growing “enough is enough” response.

This past Friday, Illinois State Representative Allen Skillicorn (R-McHenry) issued a press release publicly asking,

Has the Governor lost his mind! How in the world could he possibly think of continuing a statewide lockdown when Cook County and Chicago are 70% of the positive cases, while 84 counties have less than 100 positives of which 75 have less than 50 positives. Just what will it take to convince Pharaoh Pritzker to let people in most of Illinois go!

Additionally, an Illinois Appellate Prosecutors Office’s staff memo sent by David J. Robinson, Chief Deputy Director of the 102 State’s Attorneys across Illinois are forewarned of possible litigation:

A cursory review of the EO (and extension) reveal clear – although potentially justified – infringements on the constitutional rights of Illinois citizens. See Article I, §2 (the State due process clause); Article I, §3 (religious freedom, including “mode of worship” protection); Article I, §5 (right to assemble and petition); Article I, §15 (right of eminent domain); and Article I, §24 (rights retained).

Article I, §23 also specifically accounts for citizen’s being responsible for their actions to preserve liberty, as follows: “A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities.” Implicit in §23 is idea that emergencies may require adherence to individual responsibility rather than suspension of Constitutional rights.

…

From a strict enforcement standpoint, although well-intentioned on an emergency basis, the EO is very broad and does not appear to meet strict scrutiny – this is not to mention the EO appears to be beyond the framework of the specific Act it cites as support.

Illinoisans must awaken to the truth: the governor’s edicts infringe on our God-given, unalienable rights as set forth in our federal and state constitutions.

Speak Out

Calls and email messages to state lawmakers are vital. Too many politicians are keeping their heads down and have not challenged the abuse of power by the Pritzker administration. They are simply afraid of the media and the negative coverage they may receive as a result of being outspoken. Calls to these lawmakers are needed to get them off the sideline and into the fray. They need to be emboldened.

Our grand experiment in liberty, built firmly on Judeo/Christian (Biblical) truths and values, calls for servant leaders whose fallen human natures were reined in by a system of checks and balances. Let’s return to that vision and fight for the liberty our forefathers bled and died for.

Now is not the time for silence but for mighty prayers and grassroots action.

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

There’s nothing quite like a crisis to bring out the best in people. There’s also nothing quite like a crisis to bring out the worst in people. Case in point, Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer’s idiotic defense of prohibiting doctors from performing “non-essential” surgical procedures, including joint replacements, while allowing doctors to continue to perform freely chosen, that is, elective abortions.

Before discussing Whitmer’s idiotic statement, let’s remember that abortion—i.e., the deliberate killing of a human prior to his or her delivery—is never necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. While there are emergencies that require a pregnancy to be terminated to save the life of a mother, terminating a pregnancy never requires the prior and intentional killing of her baby—also known as human slaughter. To be clear, a pregnancy can be terminated via a Caesarean section, which does not involve the direct killing of a baby. Sometimes the emergency delivery of a baby prior to full gestation will result in its death, but such a death is not an abortion. Therefore, abortion is never necessary to save a mother’s life, and if it’s never necessary to save a woman’s life, abortion is by definition non-essential.

Governor Whitmer begs to differ, arguing irrationally the following after being asked about her pandemic regulations regarding abortion:

We stopped elective surgeries here in Michigan. Some people have tried to say that that type of a procedure is considered the same and that’s ridiculous. A woman’s health care, her whole future, her ability to decide if and when she starts a family is not an election, it is fundamental to her life. It is life sustaining and it’s something that government should not be getting in the middle of.

Whitmer, like so many other leftists, can’t even bring herself to say “abortion” (let alone the more fitting term “feticide”). Instead, she uses the cumbersome euphemism “that type of procedure.” Whitmer’s statement, dripping with irony that was apparently lost on the witless Whitmer, refers to the intentional slaughter of the unborn as a “life-sustaining” procedure.

Still avoiding the term “abortion,” Whitmer employs the strategically useful go-to term of cultural regressives everywhere: “woman’s health care.” Someone should ask Whitmer how the slaughter by abortion of 431,000 little women every year in the U.S. alone constitutes “health care” for those females.

While deciding whether or not to allow a human in the womb to continue to live may affect a woman’s “future,” affecting one’s future does not make a procedure essential. Nor does deciding “if and when” to start a family make a medical decision “essential.” In describing the “procedure” of feticide as deciding “if and when” to start a family,” Whitmer inadvertently reveals that feticide is, indeed, elective, and if it’s elective, it’s non-essential.

Whitmer must believe the entire country just fell off the turnip truck if she expects anyone to believe that joint replacements to end daily and often excruciating pain and disability are elective and must cease during the pandemic while freely chosen abortion—a procedure that leftists call “pro-choice”—is non-elective and essential.

And she must believe all Michiganders are dupes when she says government should not be “getting in the middle of” health care decisions as she—the government—gets in the middle of health care decisions.

Whitmer tweeted a photo of herself wearing a pink hat that says in all caps, “PLANNED PARENTHOOD MAKES AMERICA GREAT,” accompanied by her words “The future is bright… and pink!” That photo encapsulates the depraved “progressive” vision of a “great” America. For “progressives,” slaughtering the unborn at any point from conception to birth for any or no reason and forcing taxpayers to subsidize this elective, non-essential human slaughter makes America great.

Whitmer’s hubris and  incompetence extend beyond her “getting in the middle of health care” by designating the practice of women freely hiring “doctors” to kill their offspring “health care.”  She also banned  “lawn and landscaping services, motor boating and golf. Large stores can’t sell paint, furniture or garden equipment. People aren’t allowed to travel between residences, which blocks them from visiting second homes and hunting cabins.” In so doing, Whitmer provided yet more evidence that regressives lack both moral compasses and an ability to think coherently. We should have learned through history that leaders who lack both morality and rationality use the exercise of raw power to achieve their destructive ends.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Leftists-Say-Freely-Choosing-Feticide-Is-Now-Non-Elective.mp3

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

Written by Austin Scott Davies

On March 9, 2020, Governor J.B. Pritzker declared every county in Illinois a disaster area. The Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act (20 ILCS 3305/7) allows the governor to proclaim a disaster exists by which he can give himself authority under the Act to exercise certain emergency powers.

The most noteworthy of the powers he has exercised is the power to control the movement of persons within a disaster area and the power to control and restrict the use, sale, or distribution of goods and services.

The governor is constrained by the Act to exercise the emergency powers for a period that is not to exceed 30 days following the proclamation of a disaster. Under the Act, the governor’s emergency powers have expired.

The federal and Illinois’ constitutions also limit the governor’s power through their due process and equal protection clauses. The Bill of Rights, found in both constitutions, restrain the government from violating our rights. However, the government is allowed to burden our rights under certain circumstances.

If a fundamental right is burdened by the government, for example the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, or movement, some questions asked by courts to determine whether the government’s act is constitutional are whether the act substantially burdened the fundamental right, whether the act furthered a compelling government interest, and whether the government used the least restrictive means possible to pursue that interest. This analysis is called strict scrutiny.

If a non-fundamental right is burdened, courts use the rational basis analysis. Judicial precedent deems economic and business rights to be included as non-fundamental. In determining whether a government act is constitutional here, courts determine whether an act is rationally related to a legitimate government objective. Both strict scrutiny and rational basis analysis are also used for equal protection analysis, when the government applies laws differently based on classifications it creates.

Both fundamental and non-fundamental rights have been burdened by the governor’s orders, and businesses and activities have been classified as “essential” or “non-essential.” In particular, by Order 2020-10, which chose certain businesses that had to close and certain activities that people were no longer allowed to engage in. This “stay-at-home” order shuttered thousands of businesses and restricted fundamental liberties of people in Illinois.

Is prohibiting church services and gatherings of over a certain number of people but allowing people to buy recreational cannabis and liquor–even if “social-distancing” is practiced during each activity–the least restrictive means to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 (also known as the disease “COVID-19”)? Are these classifications rationally related to preventing the spread of the virus? What does shutting down schools have to do with protecting the elderly and immuno-compromised who are most at risk for hospitalization? These questions are beginning to be asked across the nation by litigants, courts, and legislatures. Some doctors believe that isolation and “social distancing” should only be practiced by those most at risk, and that “social-distancing” and isolation will in the long term lead to more death than if we built up herd immunity quicker among the healthy while giving the option to those at risk to choose to social-distance and stay home.

Courts will also be asked to decide whether the government can lawfully arrest or fine people for violating the governor’s orders. In short, no, the government cannot arrest you merely for violating the governor’s orders. Unlike some states, Illinois’ Emergency Management Act does not provide any penalties for violations, so for the executive branch to impose a penalty for a violation would be a violation of procedural due process, which prohibits enforcement of penalties that are vague or, as in this case, non-existent. Even if the governor issued an order specifying a penalty, it would still be unenforceable. In our tripartite, constitutional republic, only the legislature can make law. If the governor purported to create a penalty by order, and that is not present in the statute, that part of his order would be void.

Local municipalities have passed ordinances that provide for penalties if the governor’s order is violated. Some of these ordinances may be lawful while others may not be. For example, Chicago’s Department of Public Health issued an order that requires sick people not to leave their homes except for certain essential activities. The order references Chicago ordinance 2-112-340 for enforcement of its order, which provides that anyone violating an order by the Illinois Department of Public Health or Board of Health can be fined between $100-$500 dollars. The Chicago Department of Public Health gets its authority from the Illinois Administrative Code, which allows for the Illinois Department of Public Health to delegate its authority to to local health authorities. Therefore, the Chicago Department, like the Illinois Department of Public Health, is constrained in its actions by the Illinois Department of Health Act (20 ILCS 2305).

Section 2 of this Act allows the Illinois Department of Public Health, and local health authorities, to order quarantine, isolation, and closure of places to prevent the probable spread of a dangerous or infectious disease. However, these agencies cannot make such orders without a prior court order, or consent by the person or persons effected. The only exception to this is if, in the reasonable judgment of the agency issuing the order, exigent circumstances exist that require immediate action to protect the public, they can make such orders. The agency issuing the order is still required either obtain consent or court order within 48 hours of doing so, unless the courts are unavailable or circumstances make it impossible to obtain a court order. Then, the orders can only stay in place until the agency can obtain the court order through reasonable means.

Illinois’ courts may require video and telephonic hearings at this time, but they are not closed. There have been no reports that the Chicago Department of Health has obtained a court order authorizing the quarantine or isolation of anyone. For this reason, if Chicago law enforcement does issue any fines pursuant to the ordinance, it may be possible to have the fines dismissed. It is also possible that law enforcement would charge you with a Class A misdemeanor for violating an order of a health department agency, found in the act at 20 ILCS 2305/8.1, which may be defended on the same grounds. A Class A misdemeanor carries with it up to 364 days in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.

Threat of criminal penalty has also been made by the governor. When pressed what punishment people could face for violating his order, Gov. Pritzker stated that the police could get a court order or charge people with reckless conduct. Reckless conduct (720 ILCS 5/12-5) is conduct that is performed recklessly and that endangers the safety of another person and is a Class A misdemeanor. The government would have a hard time proving your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are not under court-ordered quarantine, if you go in public while practicing “social-distancing” and wearing a mask, even while sick, your actions may not be reckless or endangering anyone else. If you are not sick, even if you are not practicing “social-distancing” or wearing a mask, it is hard to imagine the government proving that you endangered another person. It would likely have to be proven that the government knew you were positive for the virus before they arrested you for going into public and that you were reckless by not practicing social-distancing or wearing a mask.

Illinoisans may have another right regarding the pandemic. That is the right to just compensation for a government “taking.” The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that the government will not take anyone’s property without just compensation. This Amendment is incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The same clause can be found in Section 15 of Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution. U.S. Supreme Court precedent states that one method for the government to take something is to deny it all economically viable use.

Many businesses have been denied all economic viability. Such a large scale taking and compensation is unprecedented, but it does appear that there is a justifiable argument for relief.

The Illinois General Assembly may be back in session sometime next month. Whether they act to check the governor’s power remains to be seen, but it is not likely since both branches are controlled by the same political party. As more Illinoisans struggle under the governor’s orders and local ordinances, more lawsuits will be filed, and the courts may be the only arbiter of the extent of the government’s power during this pandemic.

Austin Scott Davies is an attorney, former prosecutor, and an active member of the Winnebago County Republican Party. He is also a board member for Concerned Citizens for America, a local chapter of Illinois Family Institute.

The information contained in this article is not legal advice and is for general information purposes only. Do not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information. Readers should contact an attorney to obtain advice with respect to any legal matter.

Written by David Limbaugh

The liberal media are urging Joe Biden to form a shadow government to upstage President Donald Trump‘s crisis response effort, which illustrates its consuming partisanship — and its insufficient attention to the health and welfare of the American people.

MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle floated the idea during an interview with former Barack Obama staffer Jim Messina. Referring to Trump’s COVID-19 daily press briefing, Ruhle asked, “Should Joe Biden be counterprogramming that? Should he be creating his own shadow government, shadow Cabinet, shadow SWAT team, and getting up there at a podium every night, saying, ‘Here’s the crisis we’re in. Here’s what we need to do to address this’?”

I’ll concede that if Biden were to follow Ruhle’s ludicrous suggestion, Trump would be the biggest beneficiary. If some are still unaware of Biden’s diminishing competence, they would certainly learn of it in counter-press briefings. But let’s not get sidetracked with our own partisan ruminations when we should be working together to mitigate Americans’ medical and economic hardships.

Sadly, the media can’t get beyond their obsessive hatred for Trump to approach this moment with even minimal clarity. We witness this repeatedly at the briefings. Some reporters seek to elicit facts that will help inform the public, but far too many are there to grandstand, and to embarrass and shame the president.

They sling their gotcha questions, hoping to trick Trump into admitting he didn’t act quickly enough and isn’t effectively overseeing the distribution of equipment and other aid to the states. Some have very nearly accused Trump of causing American deaths.

Aside from the spuriousness of their claims, these questions are utterly inappropriate and counterproductive at briefings whose purpose is to update the American people on our battle against the coronavirus and on plans to reopen the economy.

Accusing President Trump of an initially tardy response, even if true (which it isn’t), distracts our attention from combating this pandemic. It may satisfy their Trump-hating lust, but it serves no constructive purpose. If they want to pursue yet another investigative crusade against Trump in time to damage him before the November election, how about they wait just a few more months while the adults try to alleviate real pain befalling real people?

The idea of a shadow government is not just ill-motivated; it is absurd. Who are these clowns kidding? The president’s principal medical advisers on this crisis, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx, are certainly not Republicans telling Trump whatever he wants to hear. If they’re paying attention, they also know that Trump is respectfully considering their every word and, in most cases, deferring to their judgment. The media were aghast when Birx shattered their narrative of Trump as an inattentive lummox. “He’s been so attentive to the scientific literature and the details and the data,” said Birx. “I think his ability to analyze and integrate data that comes out of his long history in business has really been a real benefit during these discussions about medical issues.” So do I.

The media have tried to drive a wedge between Fauci and Trump, but neither of them would have it. Fauci has insisted that there is little, if any, inconsistency in their positions. There is no tension between Trump and these doctors in the briefings. Fauci has also been quite clear in disabusing Trump’s media prosecutors of their claim that Trump was delinquent in responding to the crisis — because if Trump was late, Fauci was even later.

So what would these armchair quarterbacks hope to accomplish through their fantasy shadow team, other than keeping Joe Biden in the limelight by presenting some bogus alternative to the administration’s leadership?

As it turns out, Ruhle wasn’t the first to pitch the shadow government concept. On March 23, Washington Post opinion writer Paul Waldman proposed it. “In Britain, the opposition party maintains a ‘shadow’ cabinet, a group of spokespeople assigned the same policy areas as the ministries of the government, to offer the opposition’s view on whatever issue is being discussed at a given moment,” wrote Waldman. “While Biden probably wouldn’t want to assign specific Cabinet positions now he could utilize both his own aides and people in the broader Democratic world to give the public a picture of what government under President Biden would be up to — and provide a contrast with the chaos, corruption, and incompetence that characterizes the Trump administration.”

The common thread uniting Ruhle, Waldman and the rest of the Trump-hating media cabal is their inability to see anything outside a partisan lens. Even now while thousands of Americans have died and millions are suffering financially, they can’t see past their unremitting contempt for him, and they can’t apply their energy toward helping Trump solve these problems instead of scheming of ways to unseat him in November.

Meanwhile, Trump has organized both his coronavirus task force and his Opening Our Country Council on a bipartisan basis, and he is working across party lines with businesses and state governments to address the crisis.

While the media have failed to make their case against Trump for incompetence and partisanship, they have resoundingly demonstrated their own — and the public is not likely to soon forget it.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is “Guilty by Reason of Insanity: Why the Democrats Must Not Win.” Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at davidlimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Written by Peter Heck

How he managed to say it without choking on his own tongue I will never know. As President Trump began to dress down the hostile press that was attempting to use his Monday White House briefing to smear him as negligent, CNN cut away immediately to anchor John King who managed to prattle out these words without even a sniff of irony:

“To play a propaganda video at taxpayer expense in the White House briefing room is a new — you can insert your favorite word here – in this administration.”

For anyone at CNN to feign objection over “propaganda” is as convincing a testimony you will ever see to the staggering lack of self-awareness capable by seemingly coherent human beings.

This is, after all, the network of Jake Tapper, who just days ago allowed socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to repeat without correction the now widely debunked rumor that President Trump called coronavirus a hoax. Tapper actually defended his own silence saying that while he knew it was a lie, he let it slide by because President Trump lies about other things. Seriously:

I guess that’s the problem with a politician who lies so often; while I agree that Democrats are mischaracterizing what he said, what he did say was also false so it’s tough to justify taking the time for a fact check when it’s not taking a stand defining the truth.

— Jake Tapper, long-suffering Philly sports fan (@jaketapper) March 22, 2020

Tapper also allowed Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi to accuse Trump of “fiddling” without ever holding her to account for “fiddling” herself when she single-handedly delayed the coronavirus relief bill for a week.

This is the network of Brian Stelter who anchors a program unironically called “Reliable Sources,” and utilizes that platform to peddle misinformation on behalf of the Democrat Party:

I RT’ed a former LA Times reporter who had tweeted pics that mistakenly ran on the ABC local news broadcast. When I found out the story was erroneous, I deleted the tweet. Gosh, Brian, why does your tweet omit the MSM error that started it? Or does CNN only exist to attack GOP? https://t.co/ehvPHPMrGh

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) April 13, 2020

It is also Stelter who turned disgraced lawyer and convicted felon Michael Avenatti into a mainstay on his program in order to attack Trump, and even encouraged the Stormy Daniels attorney to think about running for president himself. With Avenatti in jail now, Stelter fills his time regularly attempting “gotcha” moments with President Trump that end just about as well. Like this:

Admin officials "say the White House has made a deliberate political calculation that it will better serve Trump’s interest to put the onus on governors — rather than the federal government — to figure out how to move ahead."

Let that quote sink in… https://t.co/v2QVZBXslD

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) April 11, 2020

Yes, let it. Because there’s a name for the concept articulated in that quote, of course. It’s called “federalism,” the central pillar around which our constitutional order and system is constructed. Let the fact that CNN’s chief media corresponded didn’t realize that sink in for a minute.

Besides, it isn’t too difficult to figure out what Stelter and company would be saying if Trump had seized power and claimed emergency authority to dictate nationalized policies to “move ahead.”

This is the network of Don Lemon, an activist masquerading as a newsman who is so sharply partisan that long-time journos cringe at the damage he continues to do not only to CNN’s credibility, but the industry itself.

This is the network that breathlessly covered every potential angle of every perceived accusation against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings, yet now remains the only major news organization that has not even mentioned the credible allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden by one of his former employees.

This is the network that at the very same press briefing that John King couldn’t bear to air another second of, allowed a staffer manning the chyron machine to post these on-screen Democrat talking points with the apparent blessing of both editors and producers:

I’m almost impressed with how hard the CNN chyron writers of my former network effort to get their revulsion for Pres Trump just right!

I don’t miss it… pic.twitter.com/FLQr2Nwz8a

— Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) April 14, 2020

Incredible. As in, lacking in all credibility.

After recently surviving a bout with COVID-19, CNN host Christopher Cuomo made some startling remarks, indicating that he was re-evaluating his career at the network. Among other things, Cuomo called out CNN for trafficking in “ridiculous things.”

He not wrong in that assessment, even though I’d choose a different, more precise term for what this low-rated televised rumor mill peddles: propaganda.

This article was originally published at Disrn.com.