“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
~Isaiah 5:20

Informed people know that Christians are persecuted around the world, but too few acknowledge the growing persecution of Christians in Canada and the United States. This is not to suggest that the persecution faced by Christians in North America is equivalent to the severe persecution Christians face in countries like China, Afghanistan, and North Korea. Christians in North America, especially American Christians, are blessed to be living in country where we are yet able to exercise our religion relatively freely. However, there are red flags in America and other formerly Christian-friendly countries. While the United States was founded by those with a biblical worldview, recent events have shown that those in power wish to change that.

Some on the left and right dismiss the idea that Christians are persecuted in America as laughable, asserting that Christians are a privileged and protected class. While this may have been true throughout much of our history, it is not the case anymore.

Recently, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki commented on lawmakers in Alabama who have been valiantly working to protect kids from barbaric transgender surgeries and hormone therapies. In a press briefing, Psaki said, “Alabama’s lawmakers and other legislators who are contemplating these … discriminatory bills have been put on notice by the Department of Justice.”

This threat from a purportedly unbiased DOJ should be alarming.  Not only is Biden’s DOJ supporting the mutilation of young children’s bodies, but it is also actively attempting to make it a crime to protect children from these irreversible acts.  If anything, it should be a crime to chemically castrate children or mutilate their bodies.

The Canadian government has been enacting legislation that supports sexual deviance and oppresses Christians. Bill C-4 bans any form of conversion therapy throughout all of Canada. This law may sound good to some people because, when people hear the phrase “conversion therapy,” they think of aversion therapy, or non-existent lock-down camps where kids are allegedly sent to be converted. That’s not the purpose of Bill C-4, though.

Bill C-4 bans all counseling efforts that would help someone understand the cause/s of their same-sex attraction or help them align their sexual identity with their religious faith. Both Bill C-4 and Jen Psaki aim to quash any opposition to the LGBTQ agenda–an agenda antithetical to Christianity.

In addition, our government schools are Exhibit A in how the government opposes Christian values. Many public schools teach children that the “LGBTQ”  movement is noble, while Christians see it as sinful. For that, Christians are deemed hateful bigots. The government is clearly taking a stance on this sensitive topic, and that stance is firmly anti-Christian.

The United States is not as oppressive as Canada, but there are disturbing trends on the American horizon. Christians should become politically involved to preserve the blessings of the First Amendment and be good stewards of our right to govern ourselves.

Written by Patience Griswold

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul recently joined 18 other attorneys general in asking a federal court to remove religious freedom protections for colleges and universities. In an amicus brief filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, the attorneys general urge the court to rule against Christian colleges and universities in the case Hunter v. U.S. Department of Education. The lawsuit is seeking to strip religious colleges and universities of funding for holding to Biblical beliefs on marriage and sexuality.

As Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, put it, this lawsuit “is a deliberate effort by a major means of coercion to bring an end to institutions of Christian conviction, that operate as colleges and universities and seminaries.”

Although the case focuses on Christian colleges and universities, initially, the only defendant in the case was the Department of Education. By suing the Department of Education, the lawsuit would have been able to target religious institutions without giving them an opportunity to speak in their own defense. This was especially concerning given the federal government’s reluctance to come to the defense of religious freedom.

In June, the Department of Justice initially promised to defend the religious freedom of the schools in question but quickly walked that back when LGBT activists complained. Within 24-hours, the Department of Justice amended their filing to say that they would offer an “adequate” defense of religious freedom, in contrast with their earlier statement promising a “vigorous” defense. It also removed its initial statement that the Department of Education and religious colleges and universities “share the same ultimate objective, … namely, to uphold the Religious Exemption as it is currently applied.” Given the Justice Department’s unwillingness to commit to meaningful religious freedom protections, the importance of allowing the schools to step in and come to their own defense was clear.

Thankfully, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, as well as three Christian colleges represented by Alliance Defending Freedom have been allowed to intervene and will be representing the concerns of religious colleges and universities in the case.

As defenders of religious freedom have stepped up to protect the right of Christian schools to practice and teach in accordance with their beliefs, those who would like to see strict limits placed on religious freedom have also intervened. 19 state attorneys general, including Illinois Attorney General Kwame Rauol filed a brief urging the court to remove religious freedom protections, arguing that a 2020 rule clarifying the religious freedom protection in place for colleges and universities is too expansive because it includes protections for religious practices, as well as beliefs.

For religious freedom to truly exist, there must be freedom not simply to believe something, but to live and act in accordance with those beliefs. That includes the freedom of religious people to establish educational institutions that teach and practice in accordance with their beliefs. Raoul and the other attorneys general filing this brief have a thin view of religious freedom that offers very little real protection to people of faith who want to live out what they believe.

Religious organizations have a right to maintain policies and teach in a manner that is consistent with their beliefs, and students have a right to pursue a religious education. If successful, this lawsuit would threaten that by forcing any college or seminary that accepts tuition grants, student loans, or any other federal financial assistance to embrace the LGBT agenda, regardless of their religious beliefs.

It is not pro-religious freedom to force religious beliefs to the margins of society and insist that people and organizations have a right to believe certain things only if they keep quiet and do not allow their beliefs to turn into practice. By joining this amicus brief, Rauol is pitting himself against the religious freedoms of Illinoisans and Americans.

A similar article was originally published by Minnesota Family Council.

When it comes to education policy, the Biden administration is making the radicalism of the Obama years look mild by comparison.

The goal is to ultimately replace parents with bureaucrats and “experts” to facilitate the indoctrination of America’s youth. That transformation is accelerating.

Not only are the education system and America’s children being weaponized against America, federal law enforcement is now being weaponized against parents who speak out about it.

If left unchecked, catastrophe awaits. However, the more monstrous the federally directed abuses in schools become, the more outraged Americans join the fight.

The future of the nation is literally on the line in this issue. The outcome of the battle between who will raise children—government or parents—will determine the fate of America.

Parents, Get Out of the Way

The attitude toward parents in Washington has long been hostile. Hillary Clinton famously claimed in 1996 that it “takes a village” to raise children. What she really meant, of course, was a government village.

In fact, during the Obama years, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan publicly called for some children to be in government “boarding schools” 24 hours per day, seven days a week. Others should remain in school, including “after school programming,” for 12 to 14 hours each day, he declared.

A policy document (pdf) drafted by the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services called for home visits by government officials and argued that parents could be “equal partners” with government in the rearing of their children.

But as fringe as those totalitarian views may sound to normal people, the extremism has now been taken to a whole new level under the current administration.

When Republican U.S. Senator Mike Braun of Indiana asked Education Secretary Miguel Cardona if parents should be the “primary stakeholder” in the education of their children, it would have been easy to spit one’s coffee on the floor.

“Stakeholder”?! What?

Of course, parents should never be viewed as mere “stakeholders” in the education of their children, “primary” or otherwise. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, “stakeholder” is defined as “one that has a stake in an enterprise” or “one who is involved in or affected by a course of action.”

To call a mother or father a “stakeholder” in one of the most important facets of their child’s life is like calling a pilot of a private plane a “stakeholder” in whether his plane will land successfully or not. Technically it’s true. But it’s an outrage nonetheless.

Mothers and fathers should be in charge of their children’s education—not bystanders or “stakeholders.” This has been the case in virtually every human society for millennia. It’s also what the Bible clearly prescribes.

But the Biden administration, by contrast, does not believe parents should have any say in the “education” of children.

Cardona could not even bring himself to concede that parents should be the “primary stakeholders” in their children’s education.

“I believe parents are important stakeholders,” Cardona responded to Braun’s question, adding that “educators” also “have a role in determining educational programming.”

Indeed. That’s a nice way of saying: Parents, get out of the way, the Biden administration and its “experts” know better what and how your child should learn. More on that later.

Democrat Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAullife, who wisely sent his children to private school, famously put it this way in a debate in September: “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

Targeting Concerned Parents as ‘Terrorists’

As if matters could not get any worse, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, responding to an outrageous letter from the National Association of School Boards (NASB) painting concerned parents as possible “domestic terrorists,” decided to sic the FBI on moms and dads.

Among other concerns, Garland cited (pdf) “harassment” and “intimidation” by parents against the people brainwashing their kids with critical race theory (CRT), Marxist ideology, gender confusion, hyper-sexualized propaganda, and more. No examples of actual, legitimate threats were cited.

One of the examples of the supposed “threat” cited by the NASB was Scott Smith. What sort of dangerous domestic terrorist was Smith? Well, he was arrested for “disorderly conduct” while trying to tell the school board about his daughter being allegedly sodomized by a male pretending to be a girl in the girls’ restroom under the federally supported “transgender” dictates on bathrooms.

The other examples are equally outlandish: a ticket for “trespassing,” a nasty letter, a “Nazi salute” to protest mandatory face masks, somebody describing the school board as “Marxist,” and similar horrors requiring the might of the federal beast.

This is, of course, not about actual threats or violence, however. It’s naked intimidation of parents who are struggling to make their voices heard.

It’s also the political weaponization of federal law-enforcement in a way that’s unprecedented in American history. In fact, most parallels involve totalitarian dictatorships rather than civilized and free societies.

Fortunately, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and other state and local leaders are working to protect children in their jurisdictions from this outrageous abuse by the Biden administration. But it’s not enough to stop the freight train of evil being pumped into local schools by Washington.

The irony of treating desperate moms and dads as terrorists after pretending not to see months on end of actual domestic terrorism from rioters and looters burning down major American cities and even police precincts defies belief. Welcome to the “new normal.”

Even the former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, Kevin Brock, has warned that the FBI should ignore Garland’s Orwellian directive.

After sparking a firestorm of criticism and alarming Americans across the political spectrum—and after being rebuked by state and local school boards nationwide—the NASB reluctantly apologized.

But nobody with a brain believes for a second that the education establishment would not sic the FBI and Homeland Security on angry parents if it thought it could get away with it.

Targeting State and Local Leaders, Too

Not long before announcing that the FBI and the Department of Justice would be employed to bully and intimidate parents, the Biden administration announced “civil rights” investigations into state leaders that refused to force children to wear masks at school against their parents’ wishes.

The threat, made by Cardona, invoked the communist understanding of “rights” to claim that everyone has a “right” to a government “education.” As such, states that do not force all children to wear face masks are somehow violating the supposed “rights” of some children to an education.

Yes, seriously. This is the so-called logic of the people who have usurped control over “educating” your children for you.

When Florida and other states sought to limit the ability of local school boards to force masks on children against their parents’ wishes, the Biden administration also vowed to send COVID stimulus money to local officials who defied their state government and state law.

Before that, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a video urging children confused about their gender to report their local communities to the feds if government schools did not fully bow down to the “transgenderism” madness being pushed on America from D.C. and Hollywood.

The video, which featured transgender Health and Human Services bigwig Dr. Rachel Levine and senior officials from the Department of Education and the DOJ, gave multiple websites for children to get the feds involved in protecting their “rights” to use opposite-sex bathrooms, play on opposite-sex sports teams, and more.

The message was clear: Trust Biden, not your family or your community. And if anyone interferes with your supposed “right” to shower or relieve yourself or wrestle with members of the opposite sex, team Biden will unleash the fury of the weaponized federal machine.

So far there has been no federal intervention to protect the rights of Scott Smith’s daughter, though.

The Biden Agenda: CRT

At the top of Biden’s “education” agenda is using the education system to further divide parents and children, as well as the nation, while weaponizing impressionable youngsters in the war against their own country and its institutions.

Earlier this year, for example, the Department of Education proposed a “regulation” to inject even more Marxist race-mongering and CRT into public schools nationwide.

Under the scheme, the feds are bribing schools with “grants” and “incentives” paid with U.S. taxpayer money.

Among other elements, the administrative edict creates “American History and Civics Education programs” designed to radically change the teaching of history and civics. Between statements on “systemic racism” and “anti-racist practices,” the nature of the changes being sought is easy to discern.

Indeed, the Department of Education actually cited the debunked “1619 Project,” a fake history narrative addressed in part 17 of this series, as one of the inspirations for the effort.

The New York Times’ propaganda version of history, which has been ridiculed even by left-wing historians for its errors, turns U.S. history on its head. It paints the first nation in history founded on the premise that all are created equal—the first nation where abolition of slavery took root—into a uniquely evil nation with racism and slavery supposedly in its very “DNA.”

Also cited by the Education Department for the proposed regulation was the work of Ibram X. Kendi, one of the premier proponents of CRT and author of books such as “Anti-Racist Baby.”

Among other ideas, Kendi advocates a “Department of Antiracism” that would serve as an unelected racial dictatorship with power to overturn any law or rule it dislikes.

To qualify for the Education Department funding, state and local “education” officials would have to incorporate the administration’s extremist ideologies into the classroom—evil ideologies that divide children by “race” for sinister purposes while teaching a twisted (and false) version of American history and government.

Almost 40 U.S. senators and tens of thousands of citizens in official comments blasted the scheme’s overtly anti-American extremism.

Only after that massive outcry did the administration backtrack even slightly and remove some of the most outrageous language and references. But the somewhat scaled-back rule was still implemented, and the vision remains clear despite the attempted obfuscation.

To illustrate just how committed the administration is to this poison, in early October they appointed political activist Precious McKesson to a senior post at the Education Department. McKesson is a strong advocate of CRT, and she even recently expressed her support for teaching all children about the alleged “systemic racism” of America.

Ironically, perhaps, Garland’s son-in-law’s company reportedly supports CRT teaching in government schools, sparking concerns about a potential conflict of interest in the decision to sic the feds on parents.

The O’Biden Agenda: Centralize and Get Them Young!

The proposed $3.5 trillion “Build Back Better” abomination that Biden and congressional Democrats are trying to ram through Congress without the support of a single Republican is packed with “education” gimmicks, too. If approved, the descent into collective madness will accelerate.

One of the major schemes Biden and his handlers are trying to get through, this time with the “Reconciliation” bill, is a $200 billion program for universal pre-kindergarten. The goal: Get all of America’s children into government indoctrination programs even earlier.

Under the proposed plan, which may be rammed through Congress on a partisan vote with no filibusters allowed, all children in America ages 3 and 4 would receive federally directed, tax-funded “pre-K” through government schools.

None of this should be surprising. During the Obama years, the same warped view of “education” and parents reigned in Washington and throughout the monstrosity improperly referred to as the nation’s “public education” system.

Common Core, for example, was used to cement national standards into place using bullying and bribes from the stimulus slush fund.

And lest anyone think this was actually about “improving” education, the federal government funded a study showing “significant negative effects” on grade 4 reading after the standards were put in place. Less than one third of the victims of government school at grade 8 are proficient in core subjects, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reveals.

But academic achievement was never really the goal. Under Obama and Common Core, parents and elected school boards were out, while D.C. bureaucrats and special-interest groups funded by billionaire profiteers were in.

The plan succeeded wildly, with parents nationwide unable to help their children with “Common Core” math while states and school districts struggle for breathing room in the straitjacket of the national standards.

Also under Obama, federally funded so-called Full-Service Community Schools revealed perhaps the most brazen attempt to sideline parents in American history. These federally backed institutions, which are now scattered across the nation, promise to handle the dental health, mental health, nutritional needs, and much more for every child in their “care.”

It would be more honest to refer to these institutions as “parental replacement centers,” but of course those behind the agenda would never be so honest.

As explored in part 10 of this series, this federal usurpation of authority over families and schools accelerated rapidly under Obama. It’s now reaching a climax under Biden. And it has resulted in the absolute decimation of whatever may have once been decent in America’s disastrous “education” system.

From the 1960s’ U.S. Supreme Court opinions imposing humanism and ousting Christianity to the federal funding that eventually paved the way for control over standards and so much else, Washington’s influence over schools has been toxic from the start.

Under Obama and now Biden, the globalization of the indoctrination system described in part 9 of this series also came out of the closet, with Obama’s Education Secretary referring to the U.N. education agency as his “global partner” in the process.

Indeed, Common Core’s own architects and proponents bragged that the controversial standards were aligned with “international standards” even as training for “global citizenship” became ubiquitous.

This is about more than the government simply brainwashing your children. This is about removing you from the picture almost entirely so that the forces of wickedness, perversion, and tyranny can poison your children’s minds and souls unimpeded by pesky parents.

As this series has documented extensively, this was always the goal of the “education” establishment going back to the Utopian and even socialist architects of the system: communist Robert Owen, collectivist Utopian Horace Mann, and socialist–humanist luminary John Dewey.

Obviously, attending school board meetings to express concerns is not a viable strategy for protecting children. In fact, it may even lead to harassment and intimidation from the politicized and disgraced FBI. It may be worth doing, but it will not save your children.

While it’s critical for parents to be involved and for state and local government to resist the Biden administration’s escalating attacks, the only true long-term solution is an exodus from the government’s indoctrination system.

This article was originally published by The Epoch Times, and is one report in a series of articles examining the origins of government education in the United States.

An assault has occurred on parental rights within the public school system. Parents have voiced their concerns across the nation about everything from perverted curriculum to forced masking. If any good came from the pandemic, it is that parents have seen what public schools are doing behind closed doors. This revelation should lead parents to remove their children from the grip of the government-run education system.

Here are my top ten reasons to leave public schools:

The Marxist Agenda:

Many parents and grandparents were in school during the Cold War, or just following it, and view Communism as the enemy. However, universities hid a dark secret: Marxist philosophers, economists, and educators were devoted to continuing to teach the theory to the next generation. As the Marxist agenda became more elevated on college campuses in the 1980s and 90s, we were unconcerned. After all, this action only involved a handful of academic elites, right? Wrong. Today the consequences of ignoring the indoctrination of university students are readily apparent in our public schools. Those university elites educated the current teachers, curriculum developers, and administrators that now teach in your child’s school. The ideas of hatred towards capitalism, American exceptionalism, and devotion to humanism have slowly infiltrated public schools, starting with high schools and are moving towards younger students. Now, even kindergarten classes are taught Marxist ideologies.

Critical Race Theory:

CRT is in direct relation to the Marxist theory. As a result, CRT, which started in universities, is now spreading like wildfire across public school systems. Schools across the nation are telling teachers to divide their students by race. Instead of finding common ground and cooperative ways of interaction, students are divided and labeled according to race and ethnicity.

LGBT Agenda:

The LGBT lobby and organizations have forced their agenda into every facet of life, including schools. Girls’ sports are being decimated by male athletes masquerading as females, and neither girls nor boys can assume privacy in their respective bathrooms or locker rooms. Teachers are asking students to “choose” their sexuality and pronoun identifiers. Children are allowed to change their name and gender on school records without parental permission. Schools across the country are forming clubs like the Gay-Straight Alliance, yet denying official status to Bible clubs. The agenda has taken over the public schools to such a degree that parents cannot question the schools’ policies. (Illinois lawmakers passed legislation in 2019 to mandate the teaching of LGBT history in classrooms K-12th grade.)

Explicit Sexual Education:

The LGBT agenda has given birth to explicit sex education programs. In previous generations, kindergarteners were taught about proper touch and “stranger danger.” Now, school programs are teaching about masturbation and sodomy, and even grooming children for pedophilia. The new, approved curriculum in Illinois is entirely lewd. This curriculum includes cartoon-drawn images of acts of hetero and homosexual acts. Children are encouraged to participate in masturbation. Although the Department of Education claims parents can opt-out of the classes, parents will not be able to stop their children’s classmates from sharing the curriculum’s text and pornographic images. (Illinois lawmakers passed legislation earlier this year to require all public schools—including charter schools—to align teaching in grades K-5 on “personal health and safety” with “National Sex Education Standards.)”

Declining Academics:

It should not come as a surprise that academics are declining. As educators push their agendas, there is little time to teach mathematics or reading. In the last year, Illinois raised funding per student to $14,492, one of the highest per-student budgets in the nation. Yet, Illinois students are not succeeding academically. In Illinois and across the country, students are falling behind. The US ranks 38th in the world in math and, according to a recent study by Gallup, deficiencies in reading cost trillions of dollars. Many business owners state that they cannot find entry-level employees with basic skills such as money counting, phone etiquette, or even basic reading abilities. Declining academic achievement is devastating our children and our economy. (Click HERE to view the proficiency scores of the largest school districts in Illinois.)

Lack of Transparency:

The local school board and the state have actively limited transparency. They often refuse to show how funding is being distributed and deny parental involvement in the decision-making process. In January of 2021, the Williamson County Circuit Court ordered the Illinois school board of Herrin District #4 to repay $2.7 million in misused tax funds. The school was taken to court by one taxpayer who noted the misappropriations. Parents could prevent fraud and misappropriations if school boards would issue regular reports on the distribution of funds. Schools also lack transparency regarding the curricula they choose. A group of Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin are circulating a bill requiring schools and teachers to publish a list of materials and all curricula utilized by the school. If approved, schools failing to publish these lists will incur a $15,000 penalty. Transparency of materials and texts is an excellent idea; however, the Department of Education and teacher unions are fighting this bill and any attempt to require transparency.

Impediment of Parental Involvement and Rights:

The governmental system does not respect parents or their rights. During the pandemic, parents discovered the nature of curricula and were outraged at the indoctrination occurring in schools. As a result, parents and grandparents are attending school board meetings in large numbers. Parents have expressed concerns ranging from requests to remove CRT and Marxist curricula to concerns about forced masking. These parents are vocal but have been peaceful, with a few rare exceptions. Even though parents have a right to voice concerns about their children’s education, the local boards and teachers have been defiant. Often school boards have refused to answer questions. Have these board members forgotten that they are elected officials? Regardless, parents have been vilified, doxxed, and faced cancel culture for simply wanting to protect their children. Recent Virginia gubernatorial candidate, Terry McAuliffe (D), stated, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” This statement is a shared opinion held by teachers, unions, and board members across the nation.

Authorization of Greater Federal Control:

A memo from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) was sent to the Biden administration claiming that parents attending school board meetings were a threat to teachers and board members. As a result, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to investigate parents attending school board meetings as domestic terrorists. The federal government’s defamation of parents’ character is just the beginning of bringing the federal government into a more significant role in education. If the elimination of parental control in education occurs, then the states and the federal government can indoctrinate children without interference. Federalization can occur not only through the removal of parental influence, but also through financial control. Politicians such as U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) have long called for the federalization of funding. Complete federalization creates an oversight nightmare. This type of system would likely eliminate all local control within the schools.

Removal of God and Country:

The landmark decision of Engel v. Vitale (1962) removed school-mandated prayer from the classroom. It did not end there. Students have had a constant fight to keep student-led, voluntary prayer and Christian clubs in schools. However, we should be clear that the Left intends this ban to only include prayer to the God of the Bible. At the beginning of the school year, parents in California filed suit after the California State Board of Education unanimously approved a curriculum that included chanting to Aztec gods. These are the same false gods that the people of ancient Mesoamerica worshipped through the practice of human sacrifice. Schools have also removed anything that might resemble patriotism. One teacher, who has now been dismissed, removed the American flag and replaced it with the gay pride flag. Although this teacher was fired, many teachers across the nation are denouncing both God and our country in their classrooms.

Your Children Deserve Better:

The best reason to remove your children from the failing public school system is that they deserve better. The current system is rooted in hatred and indoctrination. Twenty years ago, Christian parents sent their children into the public system to be young evangelists. Today any possibility of that is squelched before the child even leaves the primary grades. Before they reach middle school, they will have already seen lewd images and been given ample opportunity to denounce all values their parents instill. Protecting our children means finding alternatives to public school that will support parental rights and values. We must develop our own systems that uphold Christian values. Whether it is home education, private schools, or church co-ops, now is the time to determine what option works best for your family and remove your children from the tyranny of government-run schools.

Then get the right people elected to the school boards.

Written by Ben Boychuk

Suddenly, but unsurprisingly, the U.S. Justice Department is interested in parents protesting local school board meetings. Because of course it is.

In America in 2021, citizens’ loud but nonviolent demonstrations before elected officials are tantamount to domestic terrorism and “hate speech,” while the Black Lives Matter and Antifa insurrectionary violence of 2020—which resulted in at least 30 deaths, over $1 billion in property damage, and the brief rise of lawless “autonomous zones” in Seattle, Philadelphia, New York, and Richmond, Virginia—is “fiery but mostly peaceful protest.”

The danger is clear and present—it simply depends upon who is protesting. As one wag put it on Twitter, “The DOJ used to go after MS13. Now you want them to go after Moms of 13-year-olds?”

Parents don’t like what they see coming out of their local schools. But government officials would prefer to do their work unencumbered by public input. This is old news, with an arrogant new twist. Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe summed up the current conventional wisdom nicely at a debate with his Republican opponent the other week: “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

That depends on what the schools are teaching, doesn’t it?

Indoctrination Nation

Parents have two grievances, broadly speaking. First, they oppose COVID-19-related mask mandates for their children. They note that the European countries we’re so often asked to emulate do not have mask (or COVID vaccine) mandates for schools. Sweden, where school is compulsory through the age of 16, actively discourages kids from wearing masks. And yet that country’s transmission rates have gone down population-wide.

The second grievance is also COVID-related, in as much as the lockdowns compelled more parents to notice what their kids are—and are not—learning. Many parents, including many black and Latino parents, do not want their children to be taught that America is a systemically racist nation and that its institutions (capitalism often gets mentioned here) are irredeemable

Parents across the country have shown up to normally staid school board meetings to demand that critical race theory be removed from the curriculum. Defenders of the race-based curriculum like to point out that “critical race theory” is not actually being taught in schools. But that’s just a semantic sleight of hand. No, kids aren’t reading Derrick Bell. Instead, they’re getting “social studies” (since American public schools don’t really teach history anymore) heavily informed by critical race theory and Marxist-tinged critical theory.

Parents are on to the scheme and they’re unhappy about it. The National School Boards Association on September 29 asked Joe Biden to intervene, alleging “America’s public schools and its education leaders are under an immediate threat.” The group says its members have “received death threats and have been subjected to threats and harassment, both online and in person.”

Making a terrorist threat is a crime not protected by the First Amendment. But it’s unclear why such threats could not be investigated by state and local law enforcement, rather than the feds. Well, the NSBA has an answer for that, too, although the rationale is paper-thin: “NSBA believes immediate assistance is required to protect our students, school board members, and educators who are susceptible to acts of violence affecting interstate commerce because of threats to their districts, families, and personal safety.” (Emphasis added.)

Interstate commerce? The NSBA knows that the federal government can do just about anything under the auspices of “interstate commerce,” even if the commerce never crosses state lines. The NSBA’s letter mentions “interstate commerce” three times, even though it never bothers to explain how parents protesting in Loudoun County, Virginia or Coeur d’Alene, Idaho affect the free movement of goods and services among the several states.

While the NSBA notes that some of its members have received threatening letters, and several meetings have been ended early because of crowds “inciting chaos,” it strains to document any actual violence. The NSBA leans on a “fact sheet” published in July by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, which only documents an increase in demonstrations and notes the presence in some instances of “militias and other militant right-wing actors” whose mere presence is supposed to be seen as intimidating.

(It’s unclear whether any school board members have been followed into bathrooms by irate demonstrators, as Arizona’s Democratic U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema was last week. Would that make a difference? As Joe Biden said the other day, such harassment is “part of the process.”)

The Tedious Work of Politics Redux

Obviously, it’s no fun for a school board member to be shouted at by a throng of 200 angry parents. But the First Amendment for the most part protects what parents are doing. Harsh speech is still protected speech.

That doesn’t mean federal authorities can’t make our lives miserable and chill legitimate speech. During the 1990s, attorney Hans Bader reminds, civil rights lawyers with the Clinton Administration “investigated citizens for ‘harassment’ and ‘intimidation’ merely because those citizens spoke out against housing projects for recovering substance abusers or other classes of people protected by the Fair Housing Act.” Those investigations ended after a federal appeals court ruled they violated the First Amendment. But how much did those people lose in time and money battling the federal government before they won?

And just because the courts ruled one way 20 years ago, doesn’t mean a different set of judges ruling on a similar set of facts wouldn’t go the other way today. Bader notes that in 2017, a federal judge “allowed bloggers to be sued for intimidation for angry blog posts that allegedly created a ‘hostile housing environment.’”

Here, once again, the tedious work of politics becomes unavoidable.

Parents might take a leaf from the literal playbook of a Los Angeles-based group called Parent Revolution. About 10 years ago, Parent Revolution was involved heavily with organizing parents at failing public schools to use a (now largely toothless) state law called the Parent Empowerment Act, also known as the “parent trigger.”

Parent Revolution’s insight was to teach parents to use labor-union organizing tactics. They produced a hardcover book, small enough to fit into a pocket, called The Parent Power Handbook. It detailed, simply and directly, how parents could use the law to organize and transform their children’s schools.

Most importantly, anyone could follow the model Parent Revolution laid out in the handbook.

“Step 1: Build Your Base,” “Step 2: Establish Your Chapter,” “Step 3: Pick Your Focus,” “Step 4: Launch Your Campaign.”

Every step involves practical organization advice. Schedule one-on-one conversations. Host house meetings with people you already know. Ask questions like, “What would an ideal school look like?” Try to identify parents who show an extra level of interest. Form a leadership committee. Decide on a focus—in this instance, removing noxious race-based curricula from schools. And then get people excited about it.

California’s parent trigger law had some limited success. It showed that motivated parents could make substantive changes. It also showed that the education establishment would fight viciously to stop them. (Almost every parent-trigger effort ended up in court.)

But if parents cannot get a receptive audience with their elected school board officials, they may need to resort to a tried-and-true, red-white-and-blue act of civil disobedience: the boycott.

When well organized, boycotts can be a highly effective form of political action. In 1968, Chicano activists in east Los Angeles organized a mass boycott of local schools to demand bilingual education. They got it.

Twenty years later, a smaller group of Latino parents organized a boycott of their own—this time, to insist that their kids learn English. They believed, correctly, that their children were being ghettoized in Spanish-only classes and receiving a second-class education. As one mother of a seven-year-old told the Los Angeles Times, “We want our children to be taught in English . . . that’s why we came to the United States. If not, better to keep her in my country. There she can learn in Spanish.” They won. And in 1998, Californians passed Proposition 227, which eliminated bilingual education statewide.

The boycotts succeeded for at least two reasons. First, schools are funded based on the number of pupils in attendance. In other words, the schools were losing money. Second, the parents avoided running afoul of truancy laws by enrolling their kids in free alternative schools for the duration of the boycott. Eventually, the authorities had to accept the parents’ demands.

If You Can’t Beat ’Em, Unseat ’Em

Every few years or so, parents recognize that what goes on at those otherwise boring school board meetings is pretty important to their kids’ wellbeing and educations. Local school boards may not have as much power as they once did—the number of U.S. public school districts has shrunk from more than 117,000 in 1940 to around 13,000 today—but they’re still important. In states with term limits (such as California), one party recognized decades ago that those seemingly insignificant local boards are ideal proving grounds for future candidates for statewide office.

Parents’ impassioned denunciations of noxious critical race theories and their offshoots make for great viral videos and may help shape future policies. Ultimately, however, they’re little more than political theater.

Unless and until these parents are in a position to persuade board members to change their votes, the only other option is to replace the board.

To that end, it isn’t enough to show up once to lodge a complaint. Attend every board meeting, not necessarily to speak, though sometimes to speak to put certain thoughts on the record. Mainly, be there to watch and listen. Pay close attention to the structure of the meeting. Scrutinize the agenda and the minutes, which usually appear online in advance. Take note of who else addresses the board during public comment. Get ahold of the budget and break it down line by line. Study state and local education codes.

Oh, and don’t forget to read the contract with the local teachers’ union.

Written by Peter Heck

Attorney General William Barr and the U.S. Department of Justice have filed an official “statement of interest” backing the Capitol Hill Baptist Church lawsuit against D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser.

The lawsuit alleges that Bowser has acted unfairly in the application of a ban on outdoor church services that exceed 100 people. The DOJ sided with the church, writing that the actions of D.C. officials have violated the 1st and 5th Amendments, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“The Constitution and federal law require the District of Columbia to accommodate Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s effort to hold worship services outdoors,” the DOJ wrote, “at least to the same extent the District of Columbia allows other forms of outdoor First Amendment activity, such as peaceful protests.”

The church has argued that since it does not have virtual services, use a multi-site campus approach, and is not offering multiple Sunday morning services, the city is unconstitutionally depriving its congregation of the right to corporate worship.

“A weekly in-person worship gathering of the entire congregation, is a religious conviction for which there is no substitute,” the church wrote.

CHBC Pastor Justin Sok said a church is not merely an “event” or a “building,” but rather a body that gathers regularly and should be “treated fairly” by the government.

The Department of Justice is intervening as part of Barr’s directive to review state and local government policy around the country to ensure that their COVID-19 restrictions are not violating civil liberties.

This article was originally published at Disrn.com.

Written by Cal Skinner

Lakewood resident Steve Willson did the following analysis:

Hate Crimes Up — and Down

The FBI just released their annual report on hate crimes in the U.S. It’s useful to look at the data in more than one way to gain perspective.

First, how serious an issue is “hate crime”?

Well, in 2017, there were 1.2 million violent crimes reported to the FBI and 7.7 million property crimes.

Of these incidents, a little over 7,000 were classified as hate crimes.

Hate crimes constituted 0.04% of all crimes against property and 0.33% of all violent crimes.

Second, what is the trend in hate crimes?

The good news is that hate crimes are far lower than at their historical peaks. The bad news is the last few years have seen a large increase.

FBI statistics go back to 1996. Since then, incidents of hate crimes against blacks have fallen by 45%.

Undoubtedly the fall from earlier periods, before the FBI began tracking such statistics, is much greater.

However, in the three years since 2014, the number of incidents of hate crimes against blacks has increased 24%.

Hate crimes against Jews is down 15% from the peak recorded in 2000 but is up 54% since 2014.

Hate crimes against Muslims jumped in after 9/11, jumping from 28 incidents in 2000 to 481 incidents in 2001.

Fortunately, after that, the number of incidents fell sharply, to 155 the next year. From the peak, incidents involving Muslims has fallen 43%.

However, the increase since 2014 is 77%.

Hate crimes based on sexual orientation peaked in 2001 and has fallen 19% since then.

The increase since 2014 is 11%.

Third, how is hate crime distributed?

Hate crimes against

• blacks constitute about 28% of all incident
• sexual orientation 16%
• Jewish 13% and
• Muslim 4%

This article was originally published at McHenry County Blog.

The New York Times reached a new low in silliness, ignorance, and alarmism—or would that be new high—with this headline on Sunday: “‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration.” What this silly, ignorant, alarmist headline is referring to is the Trump Administration’s reasonable and increasingly necessary decision to make clear that when Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 refers to “sex,” it meant and still means biological sex. Ever-cunning, slippery-as-eels “progressives” at the NYTimes said this:

The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.

A series of decisions by the Obama administration loosened the legal concept of gender in federal programs, including in education and health care, recognizing gender largely as an individual’s choice and not determined by the sex assigned at birth. The policy prompted fights over bathrooms, dormitories, single-sex programs and other arenas where gender was once seen as a simple concept. Conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, were incensed.

…

The department argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.

Do you see the cunning rhetorical slipperiness? In the good old days when everyone acknowledged the difference between girls and boys, and women and men, “sex” and “gender” were used interchangeably. But no more. “Progressives” relentlessly pontificate that “sex” and “gender” denote wholly different ontological realities, and yet, in this article, the authors keep slipping between the two definitions.

According to “trans” activists and their “progressive” disciples, “sex” refers to an objective, immutable biological reality determined by genes and revealed in anatomy and reproductive processes—pretty much the same as the Trump Administration is proposing to do. In contrast, in our brave new sexually ambiguous, socially constructed, phantasmagorical world, Leftists preach that “gender” denotes the socially constructed roles, conventions, behaviors, and expectations arbitrarily associated with males and females. “Gender identity” denotes the subjective, internal feelings one has about one’s maleness or femaleness, some combination thereof, or rejection of both.

The NYTimes falsely claimed that the Obama Administration “loosened the legal concept of gender in federal programs, including in education and health care, recognizing gender largely as an individual’s choice and not determined by the sex assigned at birth.”

First, a baby’s sex is not assigned at birth. A baby’s sex—which never changes—is identified at birth.

Second, the Obama Administration did not loosen the legal concept of “gender.” The Obama Administration attempted to circumvent Federal law by redefining the term “sex” by edict, proclaiming that in Title IX the term “sex” includes the subjective, internal, non-material experience referred to as “gender identity.” It is long past time that this brazen usurpation of legislative authority be administratively refuted.

Obama’s presumptuous “gender identity” edicts to multiple government agencies, including the departments of Education, Justice, and Housing and Urban Development; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; and General Administration Services, are based on the subjective beliefs of “progressives” that biological sex has no meaning or importance relative to feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy that derive from sexual differentiation.

These edicts are based on the non-factual, quasi-religious belief that in private spaces shared by persons unrelated by blood or marriage—including strangers—subjective feelings about one’s maleness or femaleness should supersede objective, immutable biological sex. No explanation is ever provided, however, as to why exactly subjective feelings should trump objective biological sex in determining private space-usage policies.

And these edicts depend on the incoherent belief that, while it’s reasonable and legitimate for women to oppose performing bodily functions or undressing in the near vicinity of objectively male strangers, it’s not reasonable or legitimate for women to oppose performing bodily functions or undressing in the near vicinity of male strangers who seek to pass as women.

Leftists argue that the disguises of some passers are so convincing that their presence in the private spaces of same-sex persons will be disturbing. They’re right. If, for example, a woman has transformed her appearance through body-mutilating surgery, cross-sex-hormone-doping and cross-dressing, her presence in women’s facilities will be disturbing. But this raises several issues:

1.) It is a tacit acknowledgement by Leftists that biological sex matters. They base their justification of the use of opposite-sex facilities by “trans”-identifying men and women on their appearance as the sex they wish they were. So, if a man has used surgery and chemicals to create the verisimilitude of a female body, he believes his superficial, medically-constructed material self matters. But if women think biological sex as revealed in unaltered bodily materiality matters and, therefore, don’t want persons who are objectively male in their private spaces, they are deemed hateful, exclusionary, bigoted “transphobes.”

2.) At the same time, arguing that elaborate disguises should grant passers access to opposite-sex private spaces reinforces the very gender stereotypes “progressives” claim are arbitrary and socially constructed. While arguing out of one side of their mouths that “gender” is an arbitrary social construct, they argue out of the other side that these arbitrary social constructs (e.g., liking stereotypical female activities and wearing dresses) are definitive signs of essential femaleness that should grant them carte blanche access to women’s private spaces.

3.) Passing raises the question of whether deceit justifies or legitimizes unethical behavior. In other words, if it’s legitimate, reasonable, and justifiable for men and women to oppose changing clothes or performing bodily functions in the near vicinity of opposite-sex strangers, does disguising one’s biological sex through dress, chemicals, and/or surgery make invasion of someone else’s privacy legitimate, reasonable, and justifiable? If so, is voyeurism ethically justifiable so long as no one knows it’s happening? To be clear, I’m not equating voyeurism to sexual passing. Rather, I’m suggesting that if concealing one’s sex justifies otherwise unethical invasion of privacy, does concealing one’s presence justify otherwise unethical peeping?

4.) Finally, the problem of which facilities passers in really convincing disguises should use is a problem of the Left’s making. It is they who are attempting to socially construct a bizarre alternate reality that pretends the human species is not sexually dimorphic and that men’s and women’s non-material essences can be trapped in opposite-sex bodies. It is they who then exploit the government to try to impose this unreality on everyone, falsely claiming that the sexual integration of private spaces is required by commitments to equality, inclusivity, and compassion. (One foolish devotee of the “trans” superstition recently told me that equality demands that “transwomen” be treated exactly like women. She means that men who pretend to be women should be treated exactly like women, which is the inverse of what equality demands. Equality demands that like things be treated alike.)

Back to the title “‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration.” In case the writers haven’t noticed, it was Obama and his accomplices who tried to define “sex” out of existence in Title IX. In making explicit that Title IX says nothing about either “transgender” or  “gender identity,” the Trump Administration does not define out of existence persons who choose to identify as “trans.” What it does is make clear that the term “sex” refers to, denotes, and corresponds to objective, immutable biological sex. Only a leftist could believe that phenomena that have objective existence can be “defined out of existence”—you know, like claiming “women can have penises” or that “transwomen are women.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Trump-Administration-Stands-for-Biological-Reality-and-Sexual-Sanity.mp3

Read more:

Stuff You Should Know About “Trans”-Cultism

55 Members of American Academy of Pediatrics Devise Destructive “Trans” Policy

Leftists Redefine Bullying

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Some readers may be blissfully unaware of DOJ Pride, the “Association of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Employees of the U.S. Department of Justice and Their Allies.” According to its website, “DOJ Pride is the recognized organization for all Lesbian, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgend employees and allies in all DOJ Offices, Boards, and Divisions; the ATF, BOP, DEA, FBI, USMS, OJP, and USAO; and contractors in any of these components.”

In celebration of “pride” month, DOJ Pride is hosting its annual event on June 28, 2017 in the “in the Great Hall of the department’s main building on Pennsylvania Avenue, in between the Capitol and the White House.”

At this event, DOJ Pride will award its Gerald B. Roemer Community Service Award to “Gavin” Grimm, the girl who masquerades as a boy and who filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against her Virginia high school for prohibiting her from using the boys’ restrooms.

Her case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court and would have been heard this month had Attorney General Jeff Sessions not rescinded Obama’s edict to public schools, which threatened loss of federal funds to schools that prohibited co-ed restrooms and locker rooms.

Unfortunately, Sessions really mucked things up a couple of days ago. When asked about the upcoming DOJ Pride event, Sessions said this:

We are going to have a pride group, in this very room… so that’s perfectly appropriate, and we will protect and defend and celebrate that — and protect the rights of all transgender persons…. [W]e are not going to allow persons in this country to be discriminated against or attacked in any way for their sexual orientation—”

What the heck does that mean? Is he saying it’s “perfectly appropriate” for the government to celebrate homoeroticism? Or it’s perfectly appropriate for the government to celebrate the “trans” cult ideology? Or it’s perfectly appropriate for the government to protect and celebrate the non-existent right of pretend-boys and pretend-girls to force their way into opposite-sex restrooms? Is he suggesting that subjective homoerotic feelings and volitional homoerotic activity (i.e., “sexual orientation”) should constitute the basis for a protected class? Is he suggesting that, for example, those who refuse to provide goods or services for celebrations of faux-marriages are guilty of unjust discrimination or attacking homosexuals?

No one should be mistreated or attacked. Neither Gavin Grimm, nor any other person who rejects her or his sex, nor any person who identifies as homosexual should be mistreated. But opposition to bullying or other forms of abuse does not require humans to relinquish their privacy. And opposition to bullying or other forms of abuse certainly does not require the government to celebrate homoeroticism or gender-rejection.

Homosexuals and people who reject their sex are no more or less deserving of celebration than any other person, but the reasons to celebrate them do not include their homoerotic desires, their sex-rejection, or their efforts to sexually integrate restrooms, locker rooms, showers, and shelters.

Session’s statement is the kind of ambiguous statement born of foolishness, cowardice, and political correctness run amok that sows confusion and helps advance the social, political, and moral agenda of Leftists. Many conservative Americans expect more of Sessions.

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

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Obamas-Radical-Revolution.mp3

The most radical cultural revolution in modern history is taking place, fomented and facilitated by Barack Obama’s egregious abuse of power. He is incrementally obliterating any public recognition of and respect for sexual differentiation. In Obama’s brave new world, immutable biological sex will be rendered meaningless.

Last week, reports surfaced that both the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the General Administrative Services (GSA) have issued “guidelines” or regulations essentially mandating that those government organizations and institutions that fall under the purview of these agencies must treat humans as if their intrinsic, objective, immutable biological sex has no meaning, not even in the most private and intimate contexts.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

In 2012, HUD published its “Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity final rule,” which stated that “Inquiries as to sex are permitted…when determining eligibility for a temporary, emergency shelter that is limited to one sex because it has shared sleeping areas and/or bathrooms.”

But no more.

A new document was published in February 2015 which reverses that position:

Best practices suggest that where the provider is uncertain of the client’s sex or gender identity, the provider simply informs the client or potential client that the agency provides shelter based on the gender with which the individual identifies. There generally is no legitimate reason in this context for the provider to request documentation of a person’s sex in order to determine appropriate placement, nor should the provider have any basis to deny access to a single-sex emergency shelter or facility solely because the provider possesses identity documents indicating a sex different than the gender with which the client or potential client identifies. The provider may not ask questions or otherwise seek information or documentation concerning the person’s anatomy or medical history. Nor may the provider consider the client or potential client ineligible for an emergency shelter or other facility because his or her appearance or behavior does not conform to gender stereotypes. [emphasis added]

This policy change means that any shelter that receives government funding may no longer take into account the sex of persons when assigning them to single-sex accommodations. In order to receive government funds, shelters must house men and women in accordance with the sex they wish they were or claim to be rather than the sex they actually are.

Shelters—like the 200 shelters run by Catholic Charities—will be prohibited from asking anyone seeking emergency shelter in single-sex accommodations about their sex. All that’s required for men to access women’s shelters where abused and traumatized women are often housed is the claim by men that they “identify”—whatever that means—as women.

According to the Washington political newspaper The Hill, this new “guidance” will be finalized in September.

General Administration Services

Just days after the HUD news came out, news broke that the GSA will be requiring all restrooms in the 9,000 buildings and offices it oversees, including “federal courthouses…the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs,” to be co-ed. This new regulation will apply to both federal employees who work in those government buildings as well as all visitors. According to GSA officials, this regulation “is based on a review of recent rulings and directives from the Departments of Education and Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.”

And so, the ideological collusion comes to light.

The Departments of Justice and Education

Obama’s GSA is basing its decision on Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and on Obama’s Department of Education (ED), both of which divined and declared that the word “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 respectively didn’t actually mean sex but instead meant sex and “gender identity.”

For those who may have forgotten, it was Obama’s radical attorney general Loretta Lynch who proclaimed that separate restrooms for men and women are analogous to separate restrooms for blacks and whites. (I assume, therefore, that Lynch refuses to use women’s restrooms as an act of civil disobedience against unjust discriminatory practices. Come to think of it, what a paltry act of defiance using the men’s restroom would constitute in the face of such a grave social evil. Lynch should be showering with men in the Capitol Hill health club to demonstrate her commitment to “inclusivity, diversity, compassion and open-mindedness” and her solidarity with oppressed men who wish they were women.)

The ED is similarly abusing its power by requiring all minor children and college students in government schools to share restrooms, locker rooms, dorm rooms, and hotel rooms for school-sponsored overnight trips with persons of the opposite sex.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) also plays a role in this toxic ideological potage. Lesbian Chai Feldblum, Obama’s recess appointment to the EEOC, was instrumental in redefining the word “sex” for the purposes of advancing sexual deviance in the EEOC case Macy v. Holder. In 2010, “Mia” Macy, a male police detective who pretends to be a woman, applied for a job with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He was turned down and filed a complaint with the EEOC which found in his favor:

The EEOC stated that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination prohibits discrimination on the basis of both biological sex and gender and that ‘gender’ encompasses not only a person’s biological sex but also the cultural and social aspects associated with masculinity and femininity. Thus, discrimination against a person because that person is transgender is discrimination based on sex. [emphasis added]

More recently, in a landmark case, the “EEOC as an agency of the federal government, sued a private business on behalf” of a man who pretends to be a woman. Fortunately, in a rare instance of judicial sanity, a judge ruled against “Aimee” Stephens who sued the private funeral home that fired him. The judge ruled that “Enforcement of Title VII ‘would impose a substantial burden on [the funeral home’s] ability to conduct business in accordance with its sincerely-held religious beliefs.’”

So, Obama has used the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the General Services Administration, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to advance his radical, anti-science social and political revolution. The expansion of the federal government into the behemoth it has become has made this revolution possible. This expansive, intrusive, coercive federal monster now demands that all Americans treat biological sex as if it has no meaning. Bureaucrats are forcing all Americans—including children—to treat gender-dysphoric, sex-rejecting persons as if they are, in reality, the sex they wish they were as opposed to the sex they actually are.

What next? Force us to pretend the world is flat?

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative, urging him or her to rein in the un-elected, leftist federal bureaucrats who are putting our family members in uncomfortable and dangerous situations.

Demand that they take action to stop to the federal takeover of shelters, restrooms, and locker rooms.

You can also place a phone call to your federal lawmaker via the United States Capitol switchboard by calling (202) 224-3121.

IFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachmann!  She distinguished herself by not only forming and chairing the Tea Party Caucus in 2010 in the U.S. House but also through her courageous and outspoken pro-life leadership as attested to by her rating of zero from NARAL.

Please register today before the early bird special expires.

There was good news from North Carolina Monday morning, when Governor Pat McCory announced North Carolina would be suing the Department of Justice (DOJ). That news was followed by bad news from the Department of Justice, announced in a stunning statement from Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who compares those who believe that restrooms should correspond to sex to racists who supported separate restrooms, restaurants, drinking fountains, schools, libraries, and parks for blacks and whites.

Here is an excerpt from the ignorant, bigoted, and demagogic statement from Lynch:

Today, we are filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against the state of North Carolina, Governor Pat McCrory, the North Carolina Department of Public Safety and the University of North Carolina….

This action is about….the dignity and respect we accord our fellow citizens and the laws that we… have enacted to protect them–indeed, to protect all of us. And it’s about the founding ideals that have led this country–haltingly but inexorably–in the direction of fairness, inclusion and equality for all Americans.

This is not the first time that we have seen discriminatory responses to historic moments of progress for our nation. We saw it in the Jim Crow laws that followed the Emancipation Proclamation. We saw it in fierce and widespread resistance to Brown v. Board of Education…. Some of these responses reflect a recognizably human fear of the unknown, and a discomfort with the uncertainty of change….This is a time to summon our national virtues of inclusivity, diversity, compassion and open-mindedness. What we must not do–what we must never do–is turn on our neighbors, our family members, our fellow Americans, for something they cannot control, and deny what makes them human. This is why none of us can stand by when a state enters the business of legislating identity and insists that a person pretend to be something they are not, or invents a problem that doesn’t exist as a pretext for discrimination and harassment.

…This law provides no benefit to society–all it does is harm innocent Americans.

Instead of turning away from our neighbors, our friends, our colleagues, let us instead learn from our history….[S]tate-sanctioned discrimination never looks good in hindsight. It was not so very long ago that states, including North Carolina, had signs above restrooms, water fountains and on public accommodations keeping people out based upon a distinction without a difference….Let us not act out of fear and misunderstanding….

Let me also speak directly to the transgender community itself. Some of you have lived freely for decades. Others of you are still wondering how you can possibly live the lives you were born to lead….[T]he Department of Justice and the entire Obama Administration wants you to know that ….history is on your side.

Just a few thoughts about her remarkable piece of sloppy and insulting thinking:

• Lynch’s pernicious comparison of Americans who believe that objective, immutable sex matters and is the source of feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy to hateful, ignorant bigots is both morally indefensible and intellectually vacuous.

• Neither inclusivity, fairness, equality, diversity, compassion, open-mindedness, dignity, nor respect requires humans to ignore the objective, immutable sex of others. None of these qualities requires humans to treat objective, immutable sex as if it has no meaning. None of these requires women to share restrooms, changing areas, or showers with persons of the opposite sex. None of these requires Americans to make restrooms, changing areas, and locker rooms co-ed. None of these requires Americans to accept the view that restrooms should correspond to the feelings of people about their sex rather than their sex.

• Equality demands that we treat like things alike. It does not require us to treat unlike things as if they are alike. Men and women are substantively different as even gender-dysphoric persons and homosexuals acknowledge.

• Lynch urges Americans not to “turn” on friends, neighbors, and colleagues for “something they cannot control.” In her view, requiring restrooms to correspond to objective sex constitutes “turning” on gender-dysphoric persons. Does Lynch apply that odd principle consistently? Does she believe that a compassionate society must accommodate all behaviors impelled by powerful, persistent, unchosen, and seemingly intractable feelings, including those feelings that deny objective reality? Being loving and welcoming does not require women to share restrooms with objectively male neighbors, friends, and colleagues or vice versa. In fact, a case can be made that it is profoundly unloving to facilitate a desire to be the opposite sex.

• Lynch asserts that not allowing men in women’s restrooms is tantamount to denying “what makes them human.” Her claim is based on an arguable assumption about what makes a person human, which seems to stand far outside her professional bailiwick. Many would argue that physical embodiment as male or female is central to humanness—indeed, more central than feelings about physical embodiment.

• Lynch rightly states that separate facilities for blacks and whites were based on a “distinction without a difference,” implying that the difference between men and women is similarly insubstantial. This statement reveals a profound ignorance. Blacks and whites are distinct by virtue of their skin color, which is, indeed, a distinction without a difference. But men and women are substantively and significantly different. They’re so different, in fact, that gender-dysphoric men insist that they must use restrooms, changing areas, and showers with women only. If the difference between men and women constitutes a “distinction without a difference”—like the difference between blacks and whites—then why must gender-dysphoric men share private facilities with women only? Surely the differences between objectively male persons and objectively female persons are more significant than the differences between objectively male persons and objectively male persons who experience gender dysphoria.

  If there is no more difference between men and women than there is between blacks and whites—as Lynch seems to think—then why not eliminate all single-sex restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms everywhere? Why not allow all men and all women to use the same restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, showers, and shelters? After all, blacks and whites do.

• Since Lynch suggests that the unwillingness of women to share restrooms with gender-dysphoric men is evidence of fear, disrespect, misunderstanding, closemindedness, unfairness, lack of compassion, unjust regressive discrimination, and the denial of equality, how would she characterize the unwillingness of gender-dysphoric men to share restrooms with non-gender-dysphoric men?

• How can Lynch possibly know that those who experience gender dysphoria were “born” to lead lives pretending to be the opposite sex? How can she possibly know with certainty that when there’s mismatch between one’s objective sex and one’s feelings about his sex that the error rests with his healthy, normally functioning body?

• America’s founding ideals did not include a commitment to deny objective ontological distinctions that have profound meaning.

North Carolinians and Americans everywhere better not treat this issue like they have treated every other incremental advance of a sexual ideology corrosive to truth and thus to human flourishing. They better be prepared to fight this with every fiber of their objectively male and female beings.

The federal government through its highly partisan Department of Justice (DOJ) is attempting to make law—again—by attacking North Carolina’s so-called “bathroom bill.” Last Wednesday, the DOJ sent a letter to NC governor Pat McCrory demanding that he rescind the law within three working days or face legal action and loss of federal funds.

The DOJ letter erroneously states that the NC law violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination based on sex. In its infinite ignorance and hubris, the DOJ, has proclaimed that the word “sex” includes “gender identity.”

By attacking North Carolina’s law that requires restrooms in government buildings, state colleges and universities, and highway rest stops to correspond to sex and which does not apply to any private sector entity, the DOJ seeks to make law for the entire country.

This is the same stratagem the Department of Education (ED) is using to blackmail public schools into allowing gender-dysphoric students into opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms. While the DOJ is using the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ED is using Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Both departments—neither of which have law-making authority—have unilaterally redefined the word “sex” in such a way as to make law.

If successful, the DOJ’s effort will be even more profound and destructive because of the scope of the applicability of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Whereas Title IX applies only to schools, Title VII applies to every business in the private sector with over 14 employees; every government entity; and every religious organization, including private elementary, middle, and high schools, private colleges, and churches.

Religious organizations and churches are exempt from Title VII only with regard to the prohibition of religious discrimination and only in hiring practices. Churches, synagogues, and mosques and religious organizations may discriminate based on religion in hiring. In other words, churches, synagogues, and mosques may not be forced to hire persons of other faiths. But how would this redefinition of “sex” in Title VII affect restroom or locker room usage in religious organizations or businesses owned by Christians like Hobby Lobby?

Would the redefinition of the word “sex” to include “gender identity” and “gender expression” require religious organizations, colleges, and churches to allow gender-dysphoric persons to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms? Would this fanciful reinterpretation of Title VII require that a gender-dysphoric father visiting his daughter at a Christian college or a gender-dysphoric woman attending a wedding in a church be allowed in opposite-sex restrooms?

Don’t let deceivers distract you with mocking arguments about how few gender-dysphoric people will be using opposite-sex restrooms; or how few incidents there are of gender-dysphoric men assaulting women or are likely to assault women; or how few predators are pretending to be gender-dysphoric in order to access women’s restrooms, locker rooms, showers, dressing rooms, or shelters.

And certainly don’t be distracted by the stupid comparison of separate restrooms for blacks and whites to separate restrooms for men and women. While there are no substantive differences between blacks and whites, there are substantive differences between males and females,  which even gender-dysphoric persons and homosexuals acknowledge.

The central issue is with the meaning of physical embodiment as male and female.

• Policies and laws mandating that gender-dysphoric persons be allowed to use opposite-sex restrooms embody and teach the lie that objective maleness and femaleness do not have objective meaning or value.

• These policies and laws teach that it is not one’s objective, immutable sex that matters but one’s feelings about one’s sex (“gender identity) that matter.

• These policies and laws teach that modesty and privacy have no intrinsic link to objective maleness and femaleness.

Leftists dismissively claim that anatomical parts are irrelevant when it comes to “gender identity,” modesty, and privacy. They’re demanding that everyone in society treat gender-dysphoric persons in all contexts and ways (including grammatical ways) as if they are in reality the sex they wish they were. So, what are the logical out-workings of this pernicious ideology?

Ultimately, if this view prevails, society will be unable to maintain any separation between men and women—including between normal men and women—in any context. If sexual anatomy has no intrinsic meaning, if privacy and modesty have no connection to objective sex, if objective males must be allowed in women’s showers and restrooms, then there remains no rational justification for separate facilities for men and women or girls and boys.

Since, in the mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up world of lunatic leftists, all that matters are feelings about one’s sex, there is no need for surgery, cross-sex hormones, or cross-dressing. So, that “transwoman” (i.e., an actual man) walking naked past your 14-year-old daughter in the health club locker room just might have a chest full of hair, a wooly beard, and a penis. Remember “gender identity” has no fixed meaning, and sexual anatomy is only important if people feel it’s important, so that “transwoman” in the locker room may even have a penis and furry breasts.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. representative, urging him or her to rein in the unelected, leftist federal bureaucrats in the Departments of Justice and Education. Demand that the federal government remove itself from issues of local control and stop misusing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972.

In a case of what seems to be a case of anti-religious discrimination and bigotry, U.S. federal officials have informed a local sheriff in Louisiana that he must remove the word “God” from the oath of a local Young Marines chapter, or forfeit federal funding.

Julian Whittington, the Sheriff of Bossier Parish (County), Lousiana, says he received notice from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that he must eliminate any and all religious elements from his department’s Young Marines chapter.  An attorney for the Justice Department’s Office of Civil Rights told Whittington that he must prohibit the Young Marines from participating in voluntary prayer and must excise the word “God” from the oath taken by the members.

The Young Marines’ oath reads as follows: 

I sincerely promise I will set an example for all other youth to follow and I shall never do anything that would bring disgrace or dishonor upon God, my Country and its flag, my parents, myself, or the Young Marines.

Whittington says that because he refused to submit to the religious cleansing of his Young Marines chapter, the DOJ has defunded a $30,000 grant supporting the youth diversion program.

“I flat said, ‘It’s not going to happen,”  Whittington said.  “Enough is enough.  This is the United States of America.  The idea that the mere mention of God is prohibited is ridiculous.”

U.S. Representative Dr. John Fleming (R-LA) condemned the Department of Justice action.  “There is a very wide effort coming out of this Administration that seeks to stamp out religious freedom of expression–particularly freedom of Christian expression.”

“They are willing to throw the youth overboard and remove the funding just in the name of making this an atheist, agnostic, secular organization,”  Fleming continued.   “It’s inconsistent with the framers of the Constitution.” 

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute.