Cites Illinois Governor Executive Order as Constitutionally Unenforceable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For full text of Complaint:

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

Written by Jorge Gomez

The greatest threat to America is not the COVID-19 virus.

We don’t dismiss the deadliness of a rapidly spreading illness. However, the virus itself isn’t the most pressing threat to the fabric or the foundations of our country.

The most imminent danger to our republic is the overreach of government power, especially during a crisis. Our nation faces a fatal risk when government takes actions that violate our fundamental freedoms, leading us down the road of tyranny, to the erosion of our constitutional system.

When we survey the landscape of stay-at-home orders and restrictions imposed during the last several weeks, we see officials in numerous states abusing their authority to severely cut back freedoms, as they don’t want to let “a good crisis go to waste.”

Nowhere has this been more apparent than in the burdensome policies, bigotry and discrimination directed against America’s houses of worship and religious communities.

Churches and people of faith nationwide have largely shown love for their neighbor, complied with health guidelines, gone the extra mile to adapt their religious services and continued serving communities as their faith teaches. Even still, relentless and outrageous violations of their religious freedom are constantly launched against them.

What does this say about the state of our nation?

One thing is increasingly clear. The attacks on our First Freedom during the health crisis are a warning sign that America is facing a constitutional crisis.

Downgrading America’s First Freedom to Second Class Status

The first indication that the U.S. Constitution is in deep trouble comes from data showing that most Americans think it’s okay to maintain ongoing limitations on religious liberty.

A recent University of Chicago Divinity School / Associated Press poll reported that 42 percent of Americans think in-person religious services should be allowed with restrictions, and 48 percent think they should not be allowed at all.

That’s half of Americans who believe churches should be banned from meeting, even if they follow the same restrictions and all safety protocols as businesses, retail, liquor and other stores which are allowed to be open. That’s pure discrimination.

Let’s ask ourselves a difficult question: Have we elevated commercial activity so high on our list of “essential services” and downgraded religious freedom to second tier, or even further down the list?

Are we at a point now when we’re categorizing this First Freedom as “non-essential?”

This reveals something deeply concerning about our understanding of basic constitutional freedoms.

It’s almost as if religious freedom—including the inalienable right to exercise one’s beliefs by attending church—has become just like any other casual lifestyle choice. By the looks of it, many in positions of authority and a majority of Americans think this right is just a hobby we can push down the list, like going to a baseball game, or to a concert with friends.

There’s a reason why our Founders fought to ensure that religious freedom held a special (and first) place in the U.S. Constitution. They understood that people of faith and churches were essential to the fabric of our society, and therefore it was necessary to restrain government power, so that religious communities could freely live out their faith as well as contribute to the flourishing of our country.

Today, even if many state governors or local officials say otherwise, religious services and religious freedom are still indeed “life-sustaining” and essential. They are a lifeblood for millions in times of national crisis or distress.

It’s worth reminding those officials who relegate religious freedom and the religious community to second tier of a blunt truth: Religious freedom has been essential since the U.S. Constitution was drafted, and today it still is the primary and most essential of our liberties.

Here’s the bottom line: If “We the People” forget, willfully ignore or downgrade religious liberty from being first on the list of freedoms listed in the U.S. Constitution, then it’s a sign we’re in a constitutional crisis.

State Officials Who Think Themselves Above the Supreme Law of the Land

Another clear and present threat to our constitutional system is seen when governors and local officials across several states think they can override or run roughshod over the religious freedoms of Americans.

Consider that in the state of Washington, Gov. Jay Inslee imposed a ban on religious gatherings of any size during the COVID-19 pandemic, even prohibiting two people from meeting together to pray and read scripture and criminalizing all religious gatherings outside of family members.

First Liberty intervened against this attack on religious freedom, seeking a temporary restraining order on behalf of our client, Joshua Freed, who wanted to hold a one-on-one Bible study in his home while adhering to CDC guidelines. Thanks to our involvement, Gov. Inslee backed down and Mr. Freed can have a one-on-one Bible study, and the Governor will not enforce the rules against home Bible studies on a one-on-one basis.

In Kentucky, First Liberty had to fight on behalf of churches prevented by Gov. Andy Beshear’s executive order from holding CDC-compliant religious services, a policy that even threatened them with criminal penalties. In that state, First Liberty won two seminal victories reclaiming the rights of churches to hold both drive-in and safe, in-person services.

Or take a look at the fact that in Chicago, Illinois police recently fined several churches for hosting in-person services. The situation in that state was so bad that Gov. J.B. Pritzker at one point announced he would demand places of worship keep their doors closed until a vaccine is developed (whenever that is!), despite their “over-compliance” with health regulations.

Over the course of the pandemic, there’s been no shortage of government leaders abusing their power and trampling on the U.S. Constitution by singling out and discriminating against people of faith and churches.

The U.S. Constitution is designed to protect religious institutions, so that no governor, state or local official arbitrarily singles out religious activities for restrictions that do not apply to other areas of life. But as we see from the examples above (as well as many more not mentioned here), some in positions of authority don’t really grasp the U.S. Constitution’s protection of religious freedom.

Terrible mismanagement of religious liberty at the state and local level is alarming because it poses a threat to our constitutional system, indeed to the political health of our republic.

Think of it this way. We have a constitutional crisis when governors or municipal leaders put themselves above the Supreme Law of the Land (U.S. Constitution)—like when they make policies that directly violate the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom.

There’s a big lesson to learn here: The health crisis has brought to the forefront the reality of a constitutional crisis, a crisis caused by an impending threat of government interfering with our God-given liberties.

Right now, First Liberty is fighting for and reclaiming the First Amendment freedoms of religious communities nationwide. Protecting religious liberty is essential in this critical time, and it’s the first step in making sure we preserve America’s precious and unique constitutional system.

This article was originally published at FirstLiberty.org.

Written by Faith Kuzma

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed a viral pattern in the media of seizing on research from elite institutions to once and for all prove transitioning is essential healthcare.  As consumers of popular media, the public is becoming wary.

Case in point: Vice writer Kaye Loggins claims a 2019 Yale study shows improved health outcomes following sex- reassignment surgeries:

[Yale] Research has suggested that gender-affirming surgery, in particular, has a notable and long-term impact on mental health, but far too often, trans people already wait far longer than is safe or healthy for this care. Further delays can be dangerous and even life-threatening.

Loggins brandishes the Yale study as a victory flag over unsuspecting readers, failing to mention Yale’s strong ties to activism and the fact the study’s findings continue to be challenged.

Most of us recognize how dependent universities have become on endowments, yet we may not be as aware of how “trans”-activism now shapes “trans” research.

It’s important to recognize “trans” research always comes with caveats. ABC’s Dr. Danielle Weitzer indirectly notes the researchers’ over-reaching interpretation of data by clearly pointing out that the study’s data replicates earlier evidence showing  gender-affirming surgeries are no cure-all.

Even after “gender-affirming” surgeries, these patients experience profound mental illness: “Compared with the general population, regardless of surgery or hormone treatment, transgender individuals are about six times as likely to have had a mood and anxiety disorder health care visit, more than three times as likely to have received prescriptions for antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications and more than six times as likely to have been hospitalized after a suicide attempt, according to the study.”

Yes, you heard right, “regardless of surgery or hormone treatment,”  “trans”-identified people experience poor outcomes. It’s time to ask just how compassionate is it really to push the biomedical path, as the Vice writer did,  in light of such realities?

Moreover, Weitzer cites Dr. Hansel Arroyo, director of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at Mount Sinai’s Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, who warns biomedical treatments are not able to address mental health issues: “We know that people who are clinically depressed will often have a bad surgical outcome including poor wound healing, longer hospital stays.”

Despite the study’s own data failing to support claims of health benefits, NBC’s Serena Daniari stressed surgery as essential. Daniari featured sympathetic portraits of “trans”-identified individuals convinced their distress can only be resolved by surgery.

Simply put, the Yale study does not support that conviction. Daniari relies on Laura A. Jacobs for that.  A psychotherapist and board chair at Callen-Lorde Community Health Center, a New York-based “LGBTQ” health center, Jacobs asserts, “There’s a lot of research that shows that delaying treatment for trans people increases levels of depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation.”

What she doesn’t say is that much of that research is short term, capturing little more than a honeymoon surgical afterglow. As Paul Dirks points out, research typically covers the first few months or years of post-surgery optimism, obscuring potential later regrets. By contrast, the most rigorous studies do not support pinning our hopes on surgery as the cure to dysphoria and suicidal ideation. The much-cited 2011 Swedish study demonstrated negative health outcomes from sex reassignment surgeries.

Over the long haul, “trans”-identified individuals continue to suffer severe mental-health complications even after the recommended hormones and surgery. As Paul Dirks writes, “The mainstream narrative often says that medical transition is well-studied, and that there is academic consensus on its effectiveness.”

In reality, the literature is fraught with study design problems, including convenience sampling, lack of controls, cross-sectional design, small sample sizes, short study lengths, and enormously high drop-out rates among participants.

Research is only as good as its assumptions. We have seen predictions about the spread of the COVID-19 change, for instance, as revised assumptions affect calculations. What were other unspoken assumptions of the Yale study?  The Yale research team fell back on stigma, economic inequality and victimization for “trans” suicide rates. In reality, the picture is more complicated.

Mission creep is implicated when stigma is assumed. One of the study authors, John Pachankis, heads Yale’s ESTEEM Research Group. An activist objective is stated in the ESTEEM’s research focus on “‘how negative stigma can affect the mental health of LGBTQ individuals’ with the intention to assist ‘members of the community come out of the closet.'”

ESTEEM’s basic operating assumptions include the need to overcome stigma, and that assumption unduly influenced the way data were interpreted.  The result was grandiose claims not supported by the study’s own data.

Since there is nearly universal sympathy for “trans”-identified people and legal protections in Western countries, stigma is the boogie man of “trans”-activism. Yet, especially as regards data from Sweden, Hacsi Horvath, an expert in clinical epidemiology, observes,

If we can take service utilization as a proxy for distress, patients may be at six times higher risk of mental/emotional distress than other Swedes, and that can’t all be from ‘stigma.’

(Note: Hacsi and I communicated over twitter.)

If anything, the Yale study should put to rest the abiding assumption that surgery prevents victimization of “trans”-identified people. Horvath comments:

So in the most liberal country, super accepting of ‘trans,’ these people are totally stressed out, as well as giving up and making serious suicide attempts. These are facts.

All claims that surgery improves “trans” mental health based on the Yale study are premature because as Horvath notes,

We have no clear picture why clinic visits decline somewhat. Given the whole picture, ‘feeling better’ seems possible but not very likely.

Loss to follow-up typically hides unresolved psychological issues, dependence on psychotropic medications, dissatisfaction with negligible benefits of clinic visits, or–most damningly for the Yale study–suicide.

Overall, the validity of the Yale research is suspect, as University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus points out:

If this were a clinical trial seeking to establish the efficacy of a particularly invasive medical treatment in comparison with a non-invasive standard protocol, there is no way that these published results would favor the invasive treatment—in this case, ‘gender affirming’ surgery—when the statistical difference in outcomes was so tiny and fragile.

Because it is such a temptation to find a biomedical remedy for those individuals insisting on one, any claims based on the Yale study or others like it in the future, need to be scrutinized for potential bias.

Big money, in particular, is directing research goals and assumptions especially at a time when “trans”-advocacy is pushing hard to make “transitioning” a civil right. After establishing its promotion by big business, Federalist writer Jennifer Bilek characterizes the “trans” movement in the following way:

Far from a grassroots movement born from oppression, it is generated by the highest echelons of society and attempts to linguistically obfuscate its aim of creating an abstraction out of biological reality.

As a result, “trans”-advocacy and big business are increasingly bundled together. Bilek traces the activities of wealthy investors, not just in building a medical infrastructure, but also by working to institutionalize “trans” rights.

“Trans” so-called “rights” are also bound up with research funding, and the COVID 19 outbreak showed how critical such an alignment can become during a crisis when “trans-rights” activists advocated for “trans”-related medical services to be classified as essential care under the assumption such services derive mental health benefits.

Clearly, it is not just researchers at Ivy-league schools who would like to find an effective treatment for those experiencing bodily distress. Yet, we must question the research on which “trans”-related medical services are based.

Biomedical “transitioning” as a suicide remedy is not warranted. According to researcher Robert D’Angelo:

“[I]n relation to suicide, none of the studies undertaken to date has yet established whether gender-reassignment actually lowers the risk of completed suicide as it is generally assumed to do.”

In the rush by many to affirm “trans”-identifying individuals in the hope of deterring mental health emergencies, there is a tendency to posit glowing health outcomes for biomedical treatments.

The recent Yale study and others like it show much less than those touting them hope, and the great take away should be to question the merits and rigor of “trans” research, even when done under the banner of well-known institutions. The wobbly crutch of activist research—no matter its source—is insufficient justification for perpetuating as standard medical care that for which no real evidence exists.

We take very seriously the trust you place in Illinois Family Institute when you send a gift.
We understand that we are accountable before you and God to honor your trust. 

IFI is supported by voluntary donations from good people like you.

Written by 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.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker has filed an emergency rule to punish businesses that open to customers in defiance of his illegal lock-down orders. Violators could be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, which is a fine between $75 and $2,500.

Additionally, this emergency rule extends the governor’s emergency authority from 30 days to 150 days.

According to this online report by Amanda Vinicky, because “it’s classified as ’emergency’ in nature, the rule change took effect as soon as it was filed Friday.” State lawmakers sitting on the JCAR Committee will have to vote to reject the governor’s unilateral power grab. Without a tsunami of calls and emails, this order will be rubber stamped, possibly as soon as this Wednesday.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email to the 12 members of the JCAR Committee asking them to reject this confiscation of power.

More ACTION: Please also call the following committee members and leave a similar message:

Background

State Representative John M. Cabello (R-Machesney Park) issued a press release publicly objecting to this rule change:

We have a dictator Governor who is weaponizing our Department of Public Health to treat our citizens like criminals. The pure irony lies in the fact that the Governor is doing this at the same time that he is commuting sentences for murderers and rapists. The greatest danger today from the COVID-19 is the alternative universe that is being created here in Illinois.

People are resisting because they view the Governor’s Restore Illinois plan, and his general approach to the COVID-19 health crisis, as a hodgepodge of arbitrary rules and restrictions placed on citizens and businesses by a hypocritical leader. Recall the news stories about the Governor’s wife traveling to Florida while the rest of us are being told to lockdown. Now we are hearing that the Governor’s family has been up in Wisconsin too. In another case of irony those two states have been easing their restrictions.

I think our Governor needs to look in the mirror when he starts to criticize the people of Illinois for their lack of compliance and confidence in his approach to the COVID-19. Telling a family of four who just drove in the same car to the boat dock that only two of them at a time can be on a boat is not only stupid, it is just one example of things that undermine confidence in the way the entire issue is being handled. Perhaps the Governor should travel to Florida with his family next time and get some advice from their Governor.

It is imperative that Illinois citizens speak up loudly about this new rule that not only punishes working families but grants untenable powers to the governor.

We take very seriously the trust you place in Illinois Family Institute when you send a gift.
We understand that we are accountable before you and God to honor your trust. 

IFI is supported by voluntary donations from good people like you.

It’s not a joke.

A shocking new legislative proposal in Washington D.C. (H.R. 6666)  is being described by one newspaper as “a devil of a COVID-19 government surveillance plot.” If passed into law, it would be the most massive private citizen spying program in the history of our nation. Introduced by left-wing U.S. Representative Bobby Rush (D-Chicago), it threatens the privacy and freedom of every American. Disguised under the banner of “safety,” the end result would be severely diminished civil liberties.

Since being filed on May 1, 2020, H.R. 6666 has gained support from 58 Democratic and 1 Republican co-sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives. Illinois co-sponsors include Jesus Garcia (D-Chicago) and Danny Davis (D-Chicago).

The bill, also known as the TRACE Act (COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone Act), sets aside $100 billion dollars for fiscal year 2020 alone “to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing for COVID–19, and related activities such as contact tracing, through mobile health units and, as necessary, at individuals’ residences, and for other purposes.”

And apparently it doesn’t end in 2020. It suggests “sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2021 and any subsequent fiscal year during which the emergency period continues.”

The bill authorizes the hiring of even your friends and neighbors to “trace and monitor the contacts of infected individuals, and to support the quarantine of such individuals through mobile health units.” Among others, the phrase “support the quarantine of such individuals through mobile health units” should set off alarms.

An eligible entity can include individuals that agree with the plan to monitor their neighbors, health centers and clinics, churches and non-profits, schools and school-based clinics and “any other type of entity that is determined by the Secretary to be an eligible entity for purposes of this section.”

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative to ask them to reject this Big Brother bill (H.R. 6666), the most massive Soviet-style private citizen spying program in the history of our nation.

We take very seriously the trust you place in Illinois Family Institute when you send a gift. We understand that we are accountable before you and God to honor your trust. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from good people like you.

Written by 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 Darrell Pack

GainPeace, an enterprising Islamic organization in Chicago, has found a way to use coronavirus to promote Islam in the United States. The activist organization is a leading dawa (Islamic proselytizing) group that has placed billboards which sponsor a message from the prophet of Islam about health precautions. Excellent timing during the COVID-19 pandemic, but dangerously deceptive.

The overly simplistic advice is essentially good and in keeping with modern health standards. But many Muslim groups and pro-Islam spokespersons like Dr. Craig Considine are twisting it to advocate for Muhammad’s divine knowledge about health issues.

Dr. Sabeel Ahmed, GainPeace director, is a prolific public speaker and apologist for Islam. He has made the organization a pace-setting advocacy group for Muslims, and a dynamic promoter of Islam in the USA.

GainPeace and Dr. Ahmed are determined to find views that modern Western audiences respect and apply them to add credibility to Muhammad as a prophet. Coronavirus billboards around Chicagoland, sponsored by GainPeace say: “Coronavirus, Muhammad advised: Wash hands frequently, Don’t leave infected areas, Don’t visit infected areas.” It is reasonable, albeit rudimentary information, something your grandma would have said.

Noteworthy is that Muhammad’s words are taken out of context. The prophet of Islam was urging his followers not to flee from Allah’s punishment, and accept it by staying in the infected town.

Twisting scriptures to serve his purpose is not something new for GainPeace director. Dr. Ahmed has before published online videos that extol the wisdom of Muhammad’s medical guidance as a means to acclaim the Prophet’s role as the spokesperson of Allah; the Creator.

Religious zealots of any religion are susceptible to bias, which leads them to make absurd claims. In the West, Muslims who are practicing Dawa are often extreme examples of this.

Unfortunately, GainPeace and Ahmed are attempting to make credible the terrible idea that Muhammad is a trusted source for modern medical guidance. This would not be a matter of concern except that it also raises Muhammad’s medical views to the level of divine guidance. Therein lies the danger.

For example, Muhammad mistakenly thought that water was always healthy and pure. No exceptions. A Sahih (authentic) saying of Muhammad clearly makes such bad advice:

“I heard that the people asked the Prophet of Allah: Water is brought for you from the well of Buda’ah. It is a well in which dead dogs, menstrual clothes and excrement of people are thrown. The Messenger of Allah replied: Verily water is pure and is not defiled by anything.”

In a second example, based on a hadith report that is considered sahih (authentic), Muhammad prescribed camel urine as a cure. In light of the present COVID-19 crisis it is hard to even recall the 2012 Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) issue, but at the time, MERS was a viral respiratory illness new to humans. First reported in Saudi Arabia, it spread to several other nations, including the U.S.A. The World Health Organization repeatedly cautioned Muslims to not drink camel urine, which in the view of many Muslims went against the medical advice of Muhammad.

Both the authoritative compilations on hadith Al-Bukhari and Muslim record this event:

“Some people from the tribe of `Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milk) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy).”

This recommendation for camel urine, as so-called Prophetic Medicine, is still a live issue in Muslim-majority societies. Proof is a 2018 Newsweek article that reported on the Muslim religious leader Bachtiar Nasir drinking camel urine.

This is what makes Dr. Ahmed’s promotion of Muhammad as a legitimate source of medical expertise so unsafe for American Muslims. We must not encourage a pseudo-scientific promotion of Prophetic Medicine. While the GainPeace billboards give practical advice, they are taken out of context, and readings of sahih, would draw Muslims to dangerous behavior. Posting them to promote Muhammad’s medical insight is not just irresponsible but deadly.

Darrell Pack is an Arabist and an Illinois’ Islamic Reform Forum Board Member. This article was originally published at JihadWatch.org.

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.

The SAFE Banking Act is a federal bill that would give the “medical” and recreational marijuana industries (and cartels) access to banking privileges, such as checking and savings accounts, credit lines and loans, enabling and legitimizing what has been an all cash trade to make real estate deals, payroll, insurance and operating costs much easier.

Furthermore, this could foreseeably grant them a listing in the stock exchanges, which would give them an opportunity to raise a great deal of money, ultimately helping these havoc-producing, soul-destroying companies to open more retail businesses, purchase more land to grow the drug, and expand into more markets.

The bill has passed in the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 321-103, despite the fact that marijuana is classified as an illegal Schedule 1 Drug “with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”

Sixteen of the 18 members of the Illinois Congressional Delegation voted “yea,” including U.S. Representatives: Bobby Rush (D-1^st Dist.), Robin Kelly (D-2^nd Dist.), Daniel Lipinski (D-3^rd Dist.), Jesus Garcia (D-4^th Dist.), Mike Quigley (5^th Dist.), Sean Casten (D-6^th Dist.), Danny Davis (D-7^th Dist.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-8^th Dist.), Jan Schakowsky (D-9^th Dist.), Brad Schneider (D-10^th Dist.), Bill Foster (D-11^th Dist.), Mike Bost (R-12^th Dist.), Rodney David (R-13^th Dist.), Lauren Underwood (D-14^th Dist.), Adam Kinzinger (R-16^th Dist.) and Cheri Bustos (D-17^th Dist.).

The SAFE Banking Act would effectively neuter federal law to empower and facilitate the marijuana industry.  “We have patients and other consumers looking to order and pay online, whether it is for pickup or delivery,” says Dina Rollman, senior vice president for regulatory and government affairs at Green Thumb Industries. “With cannabis businesses being deemed essential in so many states during the COVID-19 crisis, the need for the SAFE Banking Act is greater than ever.” (Source: “With crisis, cannabis firms see a shot to get banking relief” Crain’s Chicago Business, 5/1/20) 

U.S. Representative Ed Perlmutter (D-Colorado) is anxious to help the marijuana industry. He plans to include the SAFE Banking Act in upcoming COVID-relief legislation, another stimulus bill. In addition to assisting the marijuana industry to have access to banks, he co-sponsored a bill that would provide federal coronavirus aid to marijuana businesses.

According to Crain’s Chicago Business, unlike many other industries during the pandemic, the marijuana industry is growing substantially.

John Sullivan, an executive vice president at Chicago-based Cresco Labs, a large marijuana company, said, “I think cannabis can make the case for being a huge driver of the recovery, increasing state and federal tax revenues. More people will get interested in this industry and what it can do.”

We have seen what it can do to families and communities in Colorado, Washington and California. The consequences are enormous.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact your federal officials: President Donald Trump, U.S. Senators Dick Dubin, Tammy Duckworth, and your U.S. Representative. Ask them to uphold and enforce federal law against the marijuana industry. Ask them to vote AGAINST the “SAFE Banking Act.”

Note: While the bill has passed in the U.S. House, it is uncertain if the U.S. Senate will vote on it at this time. If not, it could potentially be back in the House for another vote in the future. Above is the list of how your congressman voted. Please include reference to their vote in your email. Ask them to oppose it if it returns to the U.S. House.

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

This National Day of Prayer, May 7, 2020, will be like no other. Since its inception in May 1952, under President Harry S. Truman, the day has been observed with large public events. While the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the shutdown of all public events, prayer has never been more essential and this important event will still take place – online.

Pastors from across the state told the Illinois Family Institute how important they feel it is to pray not only on the National Day of Prayer, but every day. Joey Krol, pastor of Galilee Baptist Church in Decatur shared, “One of the effective ways of measuring your spiritual walk is by examining how connected you are in prayer. Jesus said in John 15:5, ‘I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in Me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.’”

Krol urged during this pandemic, “Now is the time to be the Church. Now is the time to be on our knees. Now is the time to be a people of prayer. In this time of uncertainty, confusion and fear, let us be so connected to the Vine that when others see us, they will give their hearts to the Prince of Peace.”

Calvin Lindstrom, pastor of Church of Christian Liberty in Arlington Heights, pointed to the power of God. “So often we focus more on how feeble and inarticulate our words are rather than focusing on God’s mighty power,” Lindstrom said. “It is good that we know we have no power in our ourselves. It is good that we are humbled in the face of the problems we are facing. The power of prayer is that God has commanded His people to pray, and that nothing He determines to do can be frustrated.”

This National Day of Prayer comes at a perfect time as our nation faces a crisis like one not seen in generations. Sensing the urgency, Pastor Richard Giovannetti of Standing in the Word Ministries in Morris, told IFI, “With a desperate and hurting nation rapidly bleeding out her freedom, the words, ‘The Effectual Fervent Prayer of the Righteous Man Avails Much’ shout at us with critical urgency… ‘Is There Not A Cause?'”

Further calls for serious prayer came from Myles Holmes, pastor of REVIVE Church in Collinsville. “Seasons of national crisis call for Prophetic Prayer,” Holmes said. “Prophetic Prayer is intercession that calls for the purposes of God to be revealed so that His Kingdom will come and His Will is done. This includes help for His people, but is even more intent for His Glory to be revealed.”

David E. Smith, executive director of IFI, summed up why it is important we pray during this time. “We have a loving and merciful God of compassion who invites our prayers,” said Smith. “His Word tells us repeatedly to turn to Him in the midst of challenges and trials. We are encouraged to take shelter in Him as our refuge and our strength. He is our sure rock in the midst of any storm, the Light that pierces every darkness, and an anchor of hope for those who contend with despair. We should embrace every opportunity to bring our appeals before Him.”

Will Graham, an evangelist for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and the grandson of the late Billy Graham, will co-host the live-stream along with the National Day of Prayer Task Force President Kathy Branzell from 7-9 p.m. central time. Guests include Harry Jackson, Nick Hall, Gabrielle Odom, Luis Palau, Michael W. Smith, Rick Warren, and others.

Watch the event online at NationalDayOfPrayer.org or at facebook.com/natlprayer. It will also be broadcast on television via GodTV and DayStar, in addition to radio over the Moody and Bott networks.

NOTE: The Illinois National Day of Prayer and Illinois Prayer Caucus Network have organized a conference call for Thursday at 11 AM – 12:15 PM. The call in number is (978) 990-5001 and the access code is 601577#. (They will be recording the call.)

This year’s theme is “Pray God’s Glory Across the Earth,” which is based on Habakkuk 2:14, “For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.”

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

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.

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.

We have a loving and merciful God of compassion who wants us to turn to Him and take shelter in Him as our refuge and our strength. He is our sure rock in the midst of any storm, the light that pierces every darkness, and an anchor of hope for those who contend with despair. We should embrace every opportunity to bring our appeals before Him.

Prayer Guidance Points:

Pray for Revival: We may not be able to see it now, but God is working good in this season of COVID-19 (Romans 8:28). Pray that people around the world would seek God during this pandemic and economic shut down. Pray that the lost would find great hope and eternal peace in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

For the Glory of God: Pray that this crisis would be a wake-up call to lukewarm believers and would-be seekers. Pray that God would draw people to Himself in a powerful way. Pray for the spread of the Gospel. In this time of great anxiety and uncertainty, pray that God’s people would be ready to meet the world with the comfort and hope that only the good news of Jesus Christ can offer.

For those in Authority: As they decide how to respond to the COVID-19 crisis, pray for President Donald Trump and his teams of health and economic advisors. Pray for Governor J.B. Pritzker and his advisors. Pray for local city officials throughout the state. May the Lord give them an abundance of wisdom and discernment so that the “stay in place” order will quickly diminish and life can get back to normal.

Peace: May God Almighty reach out to all those who fear that they are sinking beneath waves of anxiety. May they receive that courage, resilience, and healing grace that can only come from the Prince of Peace.

Greater Faith: Pray that through this we would better understand what it means to “walk by faith and not by sight” (2 Cor 5:7). Scripture teaches that God has not given us a spirit of fear but of power and love and self-control (2 Tim 1:7). Pray for enduring faith during this season of heightened fear, anxiety, and confusion. Appropriate precautions should be taken, but Christians must continue to rely on God and trust His purposes and plans (Rom. 8:28).

Medical Workers: Pray for healthcare workers and first responders who are on the front lines. Pray for protection for their health and protection for the health of their families.

News Media: Christians should pray for those in the news media. Pray that reporters and journalists would accurately report updates about the status of the virus and not seek to peddle conspiracies, politicize the threat, or stoke fear where it is unwarranted.

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

One Illinois lawmaker is calling for a state-wide day of prayer on April 24. Citing the situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to look toward the future, State Representative Darren Bailey (R- Louisville), issued the call in a media release.

“I understand addressing the immediate health consequences of the virus is a priority, but we must not lose focus on what we need to do to restore Illinois to prosperity and inspire recovery,” said Bailey. “Also, calling out to God for help is simply accessing a Divine resource that is ours for the asking.”

Drawing from Matthew 18:20, Bailey said, “We know from Scripture, the Holy Word of God, the Lord hears us when we call out.”

The three main focuses of the Day of Prayer are,

1.) Pray for our nation and its leaders (1 Timothy 2:1-4)

2.) Pray for those struggling with anxiety (Philippians 4:6-7)

3.) Pray for those in need (Psalm 22:4-5, 19)

While noting the immediate priority to focus on the virus, “we must not lose focus on what we need to do to restore Illinois to prosperity and inspire recovery,” said Bailey. The release pointed to research by the Illinois Policy Institute that ranked Illinois 47th out of 50 states in having the worst private-sector economies in the nation in 2019–losing 13,100 manufacturing jobs.

Bailey recommended steps to get the economy back on track including taking the graduated income tax proposal off the ballot in November and putting the state on a diet. “We need less spending and smaller government,” Bailey said. “When times are tough for families, they tighten their belts, save their money, and do with less. If such commonsense solutions are good enough for working families, it ought to be good enough for government.”