The U.S. House passed a bill last week that would remove marijuana from the federal schedule of controlled substances and eliminate federal criminal penalties for anyone who manufactures, distributes, or possesses marijuana. This is the first time in our nation’s history that a chamber of the U.S. Congress has voted on decriminalizing marijuana on the federal level.

Illinois Congressional members voting for this proposal include: Bobby Rush (D-Chicago), Robin Kelly (D-Chicago), Jesus Garcia (D-Chicago), Mike Quigley (D-Chicago), Sean Casten (D-Wheaton), Danny Davis (D-Chicago), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Lake Zurich), Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston), Bill Foster (D-Aurora), and Lauren Underwood (D-Woodstock).

The bill, known as the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2019 or “MORE Act,” proposes “to decriminalize and de-schedule cannabis, to provide for reinvestment in certain persons adversely impacted by the War on Drugs, to provide for expungement of certain cannabis offenses, and for other purposes.” In addition, the Act would create a trust fund, funded by a tax on cannabis products, that is intended to help those affected by the “War on Drugs.” This move in Congress comes after recent votes by some states to decriminalize or legalize marijuana, but is not expected to pass the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate.

TAKE ACTION: Please click HERE to contact U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose this dangerous bill that will trap more people, including adolescents, in the prison of drug addiction. ​​​​​​​Please ask your federal lawmaker to vote NO to H.R. 3884.

Today’s Marijuana Is Far More Potent

The pot smoked today is a very different drug than that smoked by preceding generations. In the 1960s and 1970s, THC content was around 2-3 percent. According to researchers at the University of Mississippi, the average THC content of illicit marijuana seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) increased from 4 percent in 1995 to 12 percent in 2014. A 2015 study found legal marijuana in Colorado with THC content up to 30 percent. And 2018 testimony reveals THC concentrations as high as 65 percent in Washington State. (See graphic.)

We’re dealing with a drug that has been modified to be far more potent than it was in the past. Because of that, it is presenting unprecedented problems. States that have legalized recreational use of marijuana are serving as unfortunate testing grounds and revealing frightening physical, psychological and social effects, especially with more frequent use and at higher-than-ever THC levels.

Marijuana and Health

A European study released in March 2019 in the psychiatry journal The Lancet Psychiatry found an even more alarming link: “People who smoked marijuana on a daily basis were three times more likely to be diagnosed with psychosis compared with people who never used the drug. For those who used high-potency marijuana daily, the risk jumped to nearly five times.” 

In addition, a National Academy of Sciences report found:

• “Cannabis use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia and other psychoses; the higher the use, the greater the risk. 
• Heavy cannabis users are more likely to report thoughts of suicide than non-users.
• Regular cannabis use is likely to increase the risk for developing social anxiety disorder.
• For individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorders, near daily cannabis use may be linked to greater symptoms of bipolar disorder than non-users.”

Dangers for Youth and Children

Teenagers who become weekly marijuana users by age 18 have a 37 percent higher chance of depression as adults. Researchers in Australia found that, among teens in Australia and New Zealand, those who became daily cannabis users before age 17 were seven times as likely to commit suicide, eight times as likely to use other drugs in their 20s, and 60 percent less likely to finish high school. More research is needed to consider pre-existing conditions and the effects of marijuana combined with alcohol. 

Federal decriminalization is just a stepping stone to full legalization. This will only lead to more users, more addicts, more employee candidates failing drug tests, more intoxicated drivers, more work place accidents, more disabilities, more homeless, more mental illness and more dependents on social welfare. Marijuana use among people 25 and under will increase dramatically — those whose brains are still developing and whose brains are most susceptible to the harms of marijuana use.

Illinois state lawmakers have already set a terrible example for our children and grandchildren by legalizing so-called “recreational marijuana” in Illinois. Federal lawmakers should not follow their poor example of failing to protect the citizenry. For the sake of our neighbors in the 39 states that have not legalized recreational marijuana use, we must speak out.

Learn more at Resources on the Truth and Consequences of Marijuana

We are committed to upholding truth while resisting and opposing the rising wave of delusional thinking and tyrannical laws/mandates that have afflicted our state and nation. IFI will continue to provide our supporters with timely alerts, video reports, podcasts, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences, and thought-provoking commentaries—content that is increasingly hard to find.

We encourage you to join us in our efforts. Your support will help us to continue our vital work in 2021. A vigorous defense of biblical truth is needed more than ever in Illinois. 

The state of Illinois long ago made the embarrassing leap from local joke to national joke. The Land of Lincoln is now the corrupt, insolvent, morally vacuous, leftist dystopia of U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, Springfield mob boss Mike Madigan, Governor J.B. Pritzker, and Mayor Lori Lightfoot. I guess the lazy, irresponsible, anti-science, and morally vacuous community organizers that comprise the Chicago Teachers’ Union thought Illinois was not getting quite enough national PR, so on Sunday, they tweeted,

The push to reopen schools is rooted in sexism, racism and misogyny.

Say what? Even for head-scratching comments from leftists, that’s a doozy.

Are black and Latino families who want their children back in school learning and socializing racists?

Are mothers who want their daughters back in school learning and socializing sexist and misogynistic?

No need for defining terms, making assertions, and providing evidence that others are completely free to critique through reason and the provision of counterevidence. Just call names plucked from the intersectional name-calling toolbox.

Safety of school openings

Parents have seen the scientific evidence which clearly and consistently shows that if infected, children under 18 have a 99.997 percent chance of surviving COVID-19. These parents wonder why their children should suffer socially, emotionally, and academically from school shutdowns when the health risk of opening schools is negligible.

If the CTU opposes school openings out of fear for the safety of their union members, here are the survival rates for adults by age if they should contract the Wuhan virus:

22-24: 99.996 percent survival rate

25-29: 99.987 percent survival rate

30-34: 99.976 percent survival rate

35-39: 99.960 percent survival rate

40-44: 99.925 percent survival rate

45-49: 99.879 percent survival rate

50-54: 99.793 percent survival rate

55-59: 99.677 percent survival rate

60-64: 99.544 percent survival rate

Over two-thirds of public school teachers (71 percent) are under 50 years old, and only 17% are over 55.  According to the Illinois Policy Institute, “More than 71 percent of [Illinois’ Teachers’ Retirement System] members retired before the age of 60.” So, most teachers are at little risk of dying from COVID-19. Those employees who have co-morbidities that put them at great risk from contracting the Wuhan virus should be free to stay home.

But no teacher whose chance of surviving COVID-19 is over 99 percent but chooses not to work should not be paid one red cent. Their jobs should be filled by teachers who are rational and eager to work.

If teachers think it’s unsafe to work unless they’re guaranteed 0 percent risk of death, then they shouldn’t be working—anywhere. There’s a risk of death by driving to and from work or contracting influenza from a student or colleague. There is a risk of death from tripping over a small child or being bowled over by a strapping high school boy during passing periods. Life carries risks.

CTU tweet straight out of Critical Race Theory

The CTU’s tweet is what Critical Race Theory (CRT) has wrought in America. CRT—whose ideas are taught everywhere including in our public schools—divides society up into two groups: the purported oppressors and the purported oppressed. CRT claims that oppressors are those who allegedly have power and that the oppressed are those who allegedly lack cultural power.

So, who has no power—allegedly? People of color, women, those who are erotically attracted to persons of the same sex, and those who wish they were the sex they aren’t. That’s who. Those with power—allegedly—can’t help but oppress them.

Pastor and theologian John Piper identifies accurately the unbiblical assumptions at the dark heart of Critical Race Theory:

[A]t root [critical race theory proponents] believe a person’s essential identity is self-chosen, self-constructed, not God-designed or God-given. Or another way to say it would be that, when it comes to our own identity, we are our own god. We do not acknowledge or submit to any divine truth or morality as above us, constraining or limiting our own self-definition, self-construction.

So, if I choose to be a woman though God made me a man, I am right to do so. No God, no morality, no religion, no ideology can replace me as the self-determining, self-defining, self-deifying sovereign of my own identity. …

[The] fundamental assumption is that human identity is self-constructed, not God-given. Any group, therefore, that claims to have access to an infallible word of God that dictates human identity and human right and wrong is a manifest threat to human autonomy. Within the framework of critical race theory, the claim of biblical authority can be understood only as a group trying to seize power. …

Inside critical race theory, God is small and negligible. The Bible is small and negligible. Truth is small and negligible. And evil is big, and there is no answer for it. It is a hopeless path.

Who really oppresses whom in America?

While virtually the entire institutional power structure in America now worships at the altar of the gods of melanin, sexual libertinism, and genitalia, the Chicago Teachers’ Union expects us to believe persons of color, the sexually deviant, and women are relentlessly oppressed.

While people can and do lose their jobs for saying they believe homosexual acts are immoral and humans with penises are not women, the powerful in society celebrate those who announce that henceforth they will pretend to be the sex they aren’t.

I wonder, if the CTU believes opening schools constitutes hatred of women, what do they believe the vivisection of minor girls who suddenly believe they’re boys constitutes?

Chicago Teachers Union squeaks “uncle”

Facing a barrage of national criticism and mockery, the CTU deleted the absurd tweet and tweeted this in hope of soothing the justifiably outraged parents:

Fair enough. Complex issue. Requires nuance. And much more discussion. More important, the people the decision affects deserve more. So we’ll continue give [sic]them that.

“Continue” giving people affected by the CTU’s activism “nuance,” “discussion,” and “more”? Does the CTU expect people to be deceived by their inclusion of the word “continue” into believing the CTU has been providing “nuanced discussions and more” to everyone affected by their actions?

Once again, the CTU reveals its disdain for the public that pays their bloated salaries and benefits.

If only the CTU, the National Education Association, and all “progressive” activists working in public schools had the humility and commitment to tolerance, diversity, and critical thinking that they claim to have, we might have a shot at making government schools places of education instead of indoctrination.

If only “progressive” educators really believed what they tell parents about “honoring all voices” instead of censoring all voices with which they disagree, schools could become a “safe space” for even conservative students and teachers.

If only “progressive” educators who use the classroom to assail the beliefs of parents who pay their salaries respected boundaries, perhaps the government school system wouldn’t need to be dismantled.

Imagine a government school system in which “progressive” teachers and administrators admitted that some other things are complex and require nuance and much more discussion and where all voices were included in those discussions without fear or favor.

Imagine a government school system where systemic bigotry against conservative ideas did not reign supreme.

Imagine a government school system in which teachers and administrators acknowledged that ideas about race and racism derived from Critical Race Theory and embedded in the 1619 Project and a host of other resources recommended by CTU members are not objective facts but arguable assumptions.

Imagine a government school system in which teachers and administrators acknowledged that teaching other people’s children that conservative beliefs on sexuality constitute ignorant, hateful bigotry is neither objective, nor factual, nor the business of public employees.

Two chances of that happening: slim and fat.

This rare semi-apology from one of the most arrogant demographics in American society—leftist government schoolteachers—demonstrates one good thing: the collective voices of the great unwashed, ugly, deplorables still have some power remaining. And that’s why leftists want to undermine the First Amendment, pack the Supreme Court, end the filibuster, corrupt elections, and allow Big Tech and Big Media unfettered control over communication.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Absurd-Tweet-by-CTU.mp3

We are committed to upholding truth while resisting and opposing the rising wave of delusional thinking and tyrannical laws/mandates that have afflicted our state and nation. IFI will continue to provide our supporters with timely alerts, video reports, podcasts, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences, and thought-provoking commentaries—content that is increasingly hard to find.

We encourage you to join us in our efforts. Your support will help us to continue our vital work in 2021. A vigorous defense of biblical truth is needed more than ever in Illinois. 

Illinois’ feckless U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth opposes the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the U. S. Supreme Court because Barrett signed a 2006 newspaper ad sponsored by an Indiana pro-life organization that said,

We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death. Please continue to pray to end abortion.

In an October 2^nd letter to her Senate colleagues, Duckworth said the pro-life organization whose ad Barrett signed 14 years ago opposes,

a critical step of the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) process that gave me my children.

Duckworth conveniently omitted what that critical step is.

Duckworth went on to say in her “Dear Colleague” letter that Barrett is a

Supreme Court nominee who appears to believe that my daughters shouldn’t even exist.

Really? Does Barrett really believe Duckworth’s living breathing daughters shouldn’t exist? If there were technology that allowed doctors to create life in a lab and grow babies in artificial “wombs,” would opposing that technology necessarily entail the belief that children created and gestated like that shouldn’t exist?

Someone might want to clarify to Duckworth that what pro-life supporters oppose is the discarding of any siblings of IVF-created children that their parents—like Duckworth—didn’t want.

Duckworth began her missive the way “progressives” like to address all debates over substantive moral issues: with a heartstrings-tugging “narrative”—a narrative irrelevant to the underlying moral issue she hopes no one will think about as they read her appeal through misty eyes.

She spent 2 ½ paragraphs describing bringing her second baby onto  the floor of the U.S. Senate “swaddled in blankets” with colleagues “cheering … as little Maile Pearl continued to sleep blissfully in my lap.” She quickly switched to describing the “deep knot of dread and anguish in the pit of my stomach” she experienced when hearing that Amy Coney Barrett had been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Duckworth experiences dread at the prospect of a woman sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court who believes all lives are of infinite value—including imperfect humans and humans Duckworth views as disposable. Duckworth feels no dread about U.S. Supreme Court Justices who have no qualms about the dismemberment of humans or about chucking humans in an incinerator, but she does experience dread about a woman sitting on the Court who is raising a disabled child and who has adopted two Haitian orphans.

Duckworth appealed particularly to “Republican colleagues who cooed and cuddled” her ten-day-old infant, while never mentioning that she supports the legal right to have ordered the killing of her daughter 11 days prior to the day of cooing and cuddling. In Duckworth’s foolish view, eleven days prior to the day of cooing and cuddling, her daughter was a non-person and deserving of no legal protections.

Worse still, Duckworth believes all Americans should have to pay for the choice of women to order the killing of their offspring up to the day of birth for any or no reason.

Demagogue Duckworth claims that “Judge Barrett’s willingness to associate her name” with an organization that believes that humans are not disposable “is disqualifying and, frankly, insulting to every parent, hopeful parent or would-be parent who has struggled to start a family.”

Duckworth’s claim insults every American who believes the science that the product of conception between two humans is a human and who believes that all humans are of infinite worth. The feelings of other more developed or less “defective” humans about tiny humans in the womb does not abrogate the right of tiny humans to exist. Despite what Duckworth may believe, subjective feelings do not determine either reality or morality.

Duckworth claims to,

fear that, if confirmed to the nation’s highest court, Judge Barrett would be unable to resist the temptation of overturning decades of judicial precedent in an effort to force every American family to adhere to her individual moral code.

Duckworth must focus on “judicial precedent” because nowhere in the text of the U.S. Constitution can a right to abortion be found.

John Hart Ely, former dean of Stanford Law School, former Yale and Harvard law school professor, and former clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, wrote,

What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the U.S. Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. … It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.

No matter to Duckworth. She wants what she wants and will use any means to get it.

Although Duckworth isn’t an attorney, surely, she knows that all laws “force” Americans to “adhere to” someone’s moral code. Make no mistake, Duckworth and her pro-feticide collaborators have no problem forcing every American to adhere to their moral code. If they did, they wouldn’t try to force Americans to perform abortions or pay for abortions (not to mention bake cakes for faux-weddings, share locker rooms with opposite-sex persons, or use incorrect pronouns when referring to opposite-sex impersonators).

Desperate to retain laws that reflect the non-existent moral right of women to off their offspring, Duckworth concludes her letter with these patently silly words:

I hope you’ll join me in speaking out for every American family who has struggled with infertility by opposing this confirmation.

Leftists know that Barrett is eminently qualified and morally beyond reproach. They also know that since religious tests for holding office are constitutionally prohibited, they can’t again attack her religious faith as Diane Feinstein once did, so now they will start manufacturing fanciful new justifications for opposing her. Duckworth’s fanciful justification is that Barrett will try use her position on the U.S. Supreme Court to thwart the use of IVF by infertile families. Where’s an eyeroll emoji when you need one?

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to let them know that you support the nomination and confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. We must confirm nominees who will uphold the U.S. Constitution’s protections of life and religious liberty.

Amy Coney Barrett is a proven originalist who sees her roles as limited to interpreting the U.S. Constitution. She is the type of judge conservatives have been praying for. Her faithful approach to the U.S. Constitution and her experience on the 7th Circuit federal appeals court make her an outstanding nominee.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Duckworths-Foolish-Attack-on-Amy-Coney-Barrett.mp3

HELP: Our get-out-the-vote campaign is up and running. We are distributing the IFI Voter Guide to hundreds of churches, civic groups and tea party organizations. Will you financially support our endeavor to educate Illinois voters and promote Christian family values?

Written by Rhonda Graff

There is another important U.S. Senate Bill that needs your attention. This proposal ( S. 3398) is sponsored by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and is supported by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE). Introduced on March 5th, it is now pending before the Judiciary Committee, and expected to be “marked up” by the Committee on Thursday, July 2.

The Earn It Act  (Eliminating Abusive & Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act) makes the Internet’s immunity from liability to be considered “CONDITIONAL” on complying with best business practices to:

a) Prevent online sexual exploitation including enticement, recruiting, grooming, and sex trafficking; and

b) Prevent and reduce the proliferation of child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

This bill revises the framework governing the prevention of online sexual exploitation of children.

The Earn It Act creates a new National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention, charged with enforcing accountability on interactive digital platforms. This will be flexible in the face of fast-changing technology and online risks that often emerge overnight… a reality no legislative body is nimble enough to track or oversee.

The Earn It Act directs the commission to develop best practices for interactive online service providers (i.e. Facebook and Twitter) to prevent the online sexual exploitation of children. It requires online service providers to certify compliance with the best practices or else they lose liability protections from claims alleging violations of child sexual exploitation laws. Lastly, the Earn It Act replaces statutory references to child pornography with child sexual abuse material.

This legislation has bipartisan support, and is co-sponsored by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Joni Ernst (R-IA), John Kennedy (R-LA), Doug Jones (D-AL), Bob Casey (D-PA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

Over 75 credible organizations have endorsed it including NCOSE, the National Center for Missing and Exploited, Shared Hope International. But Big Tech lobbyists are working overtime to defeat it. 

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth to ask her to co-sponsor the Earn It Act. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin is already a co-sponsor.

Additional talking points in support of the Earn It Act can be found at this link.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

The intellectually incoherent U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) sought to apply an unconstitutional religious test for office today when interrogating nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Neomi Rao. Perhaps hoping everyone listening were idiots, he first attempted an indirect tactic by asking her this irrelevant question, the answer to which is none of his business: “Are gay relationships in your opinion immoral?”

Word to the seriously unwoke Booker: Americans—including judicial nominees and judges—are entitled to think sexual activity between persons of the same sex is immoral.

When Ms. Rao questioned the relevance of his inquiry, the smug Booker responded,

I think it’s relevant to your opinion. Do you think African American relationships are immoral? Do you think gay relationships are immoral?

Seriously, he actually said Rao’s opinion on the morality of homosexual relationships is relevant to her opinion on the morality of homosexual relationships.

But his reasoning—if it can be called that—is worse than circular. His questions imply an analogy between race and homosexuality when there are literally no points of correspondence between the two conditions. Does he understand what an analogy is and what it requires?

Here’s a primer regarding this particular and particularly unsound analogy for the dull-witted “progressives” among us: Race—as understood in such analogies—is a 100% heritable, non-behavioral condition, immutable in all cases, and objective. In contrast, homosexuality is a non-heritable, and in some—perhaps many–cases mutable condition that is constituted by subjective feelings and volitional behaviors that are legitimate objects of moral assessment.

A far better analogue for homosexuality would be polyamory, so, if Booker wants to continue his  moralistic and judgmental line of questioning on irrelevant matters with judicial nominees, he should ask them if they think polyamorous relationships are immoral, to which nominees should respond, “What possible relevance are my beliefs on the morality of particular types of sexual unions?”

Then Booker transmogrified from arbiter of morality to constitutional ignoramus by asking Rao,

Do you believe [“gay” relationships] are a sin?

Whoa, hold up there, cowboy.

The Constitution expressly prohibits religious tests for office, so what the heck was he doing asking Rao for her theological position on homosexual relationships?

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) took Booker to task for his egregious line of questioning:

The Senate Judiciary Committee should not be… an avenue for persecution.

We’ve seen a growing pattern among Senate Democrats of hostility to religious faith…. I was deeply troubled a few minutes ago to hear questioning of a nominee, asking personal views on what is sinful.

In my view that has no business in this committee. Article Six of the Constitution says there should be no religious test for any public office. We have also seen Senate Democrats attack what they have characterized as religious dogma, we’ve seen Senate Democrats attack nominees for their own personal views on salvation.

I don’t believe this is a theological court of inquisition. I think the proper avenue of investigation is a nominee’s record. So let’s look at your record, which is what this committee should be looking at, not our own personal religious views, or your religious views, whatever they may be.

Presidential-hopeful Booker nervously responded to Cruz’s remarks, defending himself with this patently absurd claim:

I would defend—die for—to protect the ideals of religious freedom in our country. And I was in no way trying to attack the nominee’s religious freedom. I was simply saying that discrimination under any standpoints, whether it’s religion, someone’s race, someone’s sexual orientation, should not be tolerated….[R]eligion was used as a ruse to discriminate against African Americans.

For someone who wasn’t trying to attack the nominee’s religious freedom, he did a pretty darn good job of doing just that by framing his question in a way that implied her unfitness to serve on the court. The hubris of Booker’s attempt to reframe his accusatory question about Rao’s moral and theological beliefs is mind-boggling. He would no more die for the right of theologically orthodox Christians to freely exercise their religion than CNN would fact-check anti-Trump news stories.

As Cruz alluded to, Booker’s not alone among U.S. Senate Democrats who engage in open religious discrimination. U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Bernie Sanders (D-VT) Kamala Harris (D-CA), and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) have all revealed their brazen religious bigotry and attempted to apply a religious test for public office during U.S. Senate hearings over the past two years.

During the campaign, someone should ask armchair theologian Booker if he thinks theologically orthodox views of homosexuality are immoral and sinful.

This isn’t Booker’s first religious-test rodeo. Remember the Booker inquisition of Mike Pompeo in which Booker asked Pompeo if he thinks “it’s appropriate for two gay people to marry,” and asked, “Is being gay a perversion,” and asked, “Do you believe gay sex is a perversion? Yes or no.”

Someone should also ask Booker what he thinks should happen in cases where the rights of those whose Christian, Orthodox Jewish, or Muslim beliefs are central to their identity come into conflict with the purported rights of those whose homoerotic desires are central to their identity.

Lesbian Chai Feldblum, until recently a commissioner on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission whose reappointment was thankfully blocked by U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT),  said this about such conflicts long before the Obergefelle decision legalized same-sex faux-marriage:

[L]et us postulate that the entire country is governed – as a matter of federal statutory and constitutional law – on the basis of full equality for LGBT people….

Assume for the moment that these beliefs ultimately translate into the passage of laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation… [G]ranting this justified liberty and equality to gay people will likely put a burden on… religious people….

Let me be very clear…in almost all the situations…I believe the burden on religious people that will be caused by granting gay people full equality will be justified….

That is because I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if “pockets of resistance” to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people….

In blocking Feldblum’s reappointment Lee, said, “Don’t think for a second that you, your family, and your neighbors will be left alone if Feldblum gets her way.” The same can be said about Booker.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Booker-4.mp3

Christian Life in Exile
On February 22^nd, IFI is hosting a special forum with Dr. Erwin Lutzer as he teaches from his latest book, “The Church in Babylon,” answering the question, “How do we live faithfully in a culture that perceives our light as darkness?” This event is free and open to the public, and will be held at Jubilee Church in Medinah, Illinois.

Click HERE for more info…

Illinois’ senior U.S. Senator, Dick Durbin, recently introduced legislation in Washington, D.C. to crack down on flavored tobacco in e-cigarettes. He believes Big Tobacco is marketing to children with flavors like cake batter, whipped cream and gummy bears. As a mother and grandmother, I applaud his efforts.

But there’s another industry targeting kids right under our adult noses – Big Marijuana. We should be concerned to see how tobacco companies like Philip Morris are investing in marijuana for what some are calling Big Tobacco 2.0. (Read more here.)

Marijuana-infused sweets like gummy bears, jolly ranchers, cotton candy, cookies, ice cream, lollipops and even cereal are attractive to young people. Candy and cookies have names like Twigz, Goober, Dab-A-Honey, Keef Kat, Buddahfinger, Double Pupp Oeo, and Twixed.

Can you believe that one Colorado pot dispensary advertises 20 percent off everything with Student ID? Others use colorful cartoon characters like Fred Flintstone and Cookie Monster. Vape pens are made to look like Hello Kitty and little alien robots.

Tobacco addiction is bad but marijuana addiction is worse. Research confirms that regular use of marijuana has a neurotoxic effect on teenage brains – including permanent brain damage.

Teens are already using because they think marijuana is harmless. After all, it’s “medicine,” isn’t it?

The million dollar question then is – Why would Illinois lawmakers even consider legalizing it for recreational use? The answer is simple. For the tax revenue, in hopes of bailing themselves out of years of irresponsible overspending at the expense of our kids.

With elections coming up, it is vital to know where candidates stand on legalization.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Senator Durbin to encourage him to introduce federal legislation to ban marketing to children using cartoons, candies and kid-friendly flavorings in highly-addictive marijuana products.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

Thursday, we witnessed again an arrogant Leftist lawmaker demonstrate his disregard for constitutional principles—specifically for the First Amendment’s religious protections and the prohibition of a religious test for holding office.

In the U.S. Senate inquisition confirmation hearing for Secretary of State nominee and current CIA Director Mike Pompeo, U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) both interrogated and lectured Director Pompeo on sexual ethics.

Here is the astonishing exchange:

Booker: I do want to give you a chance to speak on your comments about gay and lesbians. You said in a speech that morning in America that endorses perversion and calls it an alternative lifestyle.” Those are your words. Is being gay a perversion?

Pompeo: Senator, when I was a politician, I had a very clear view on whether it was appropriate for two same-sex persons to marry. I stand by that.

Booker: So, you do not believe that it’s appropriate for two gay people to marry?

Pompeo: Senator, I continue to hold that view.

Booker: So, people in the State Department… that are married, under your leadership, you do not believe that that should be allowed.

Pompeo: We have married gay couples at the CIA. You should know that I treated them with the exact same set of rights…

Booker [interrupting Pompeo]: Do you believe gay sex is a perversion? Yes or no.

Pompeo: Senator, if I can…

Booker [interrupting again]: Yes or no. Do you believe that gay sex is a perversion, ‘cuz it’s what you said…? Yes or no? Do you believe gay sex is a perversion?

Pompeo: Sir, my respect for every individual regardless of sexual orientation is the same.

Booker: I will conclude by saying, Sir, that you’re going to be Secretary of State of the United States at a time when we have an increase in hate speech and hate actions…. You’re going to be representing this country and their values abroad in nations where gay individuals are under untold persecution, untold violence. Your views do matter. You’re going to be dealing with Muslim states and on Muslim issues. And I do not necessarily concur that you are put foring [sic] the values of our nation when you believe there are people in our country that are perverse….

If you can stomach it, you can watch the inquisition:

It would have served Booker well to watch the speech from which the quote about homosexuality came. The words were not Pompeo’s. They were Pastor Joe Wright’s words and well worth repeating.

Booker did what Leftists everywhere do when discussing conservative views on homosexuality, which is lie by changing someone’s moral claim about volitional behavior to an indictment of people. So, while Pompeo believes that homosexual acts are immoral (i.e., perverse), Booker reframes Pompeo’s claim, saying that Booker thinks people are perverse.

Then Booker suggests the ludicrous notion that the values of America include believing that homoerotic activity is not perverse. How did he arrive at that bizarre belief? From reading the Declaration of Independence? The U.S. Constitution? The Federalist Papers?

Presumably, Booker worships at the altar of diversity—or at least pretends to worship at the altar of diversity. If that’s the case, surely he knows that theologically orthodox Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims believe volitional homoerotic activity is perverse. And surely he knows it’s possible for people of faith to love and respect those who believe differently and act in accordance with their beliefs. Respecting persons does not require affirming all their beliefs, feelings, and actions.

As a professed respecter of “the values of our nation,” does Booker think he should be condemning the theological beliefs of many people of faith?

And what does Booker think about the untold persecution and violence that theologically orthodox Christians experience abroad? Is Booker concerned about how his very public condemnation of theologically orthodox views of sexuality and marriage may affect Christians here and abroad? The Center for the Study of Global Christianity “estimates that between the years 2005-2015, 900,000 Christians were martyred—an average of 90,000 Christians each year.”

Since all theologically orthodox Christians–both Catholic and Protestant–believe that homosexual activity is perverse and that marriage has a nature central to which is sexual differentiation, is Booker suggesting that no theologically orthodox Christians are fit to serve in the Cabinet? What about holding office?

Booker also criticized Pompeo for not challenging Frank Gaffney’s and Brigitte Gabriel’s statements on Islam. Apparently, candidates for high offices now have a moral obligation to not only hold Booker’s views on everything from what constitutes a false religion to sexual ethics but must also criticize anyone who doesn’t hold those views. I wonder if Booker has criticized every person with whom he has spent time for views with which he disagrees.

Ironically, in this self-righteous criticism of Pompeo for not challenging Gaffney and Gabrielle—and presumably every other human with whom Pompeo has come in contact—Booker said this:

Well, I believe that special obligation that you talk about for Americans to condemn things that are attacking our Constitution, our ideals, would obligate you in your own definition to speak out.

Pompeo tried to defend himself against the implied accusation that he hasn’t sufficiently confronted the expression of offensive ideas:

Senator, if I might, I have called out. We had a terrible fellow in Kansas named Fred Phelps [Booker tried to cut Pompeo off], and I called him out.

Booker interrupted him again saying, “Sir, I have a minute left.” It became obvious that all the condescending Booker really wanted to do was scold Pompeo.

Booker said one right thing in his interrogation: Views do matter.

#nooneexpectstheBookerInquisition

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email to U.S. Senator’s Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to confirm Mike Pomeo’s nomination. Ask them not to ignore the fact that U.S. Constitution specifically forbids religious tests for office.

Listen to Laurie read this article:

LINK

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

After an embarrassing rant about Christianity somehow disqualifying an individual from public office and impying that a religious test should be implemented for those seeking to hold public office, California Democratic U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein is doubling down on her remarks.

On Wednesday, September 6, 2017, Feinstein attacked U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearing. Barrett, a mom of seven children, and a former clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was basically told her Catholic religion should keep her from being qualified for the judgeship.

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” said Feinstein. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for, for years in this country.”

WATCH: Sen. Feinstein to appeals court nominee Amy Barrett, @NotreDame law prof/#Catholic mother of 7: "The dogma lives loudly within you." pic.twitter.com/mpDgNZGRsa

— Jason Calvi (@JasonCalvi) September 6, 2017

There was justifiably a huge backlash against Feinstein’s comments, but rather than retract them and issue an apology, Feinstein instead is doubling down on her statement, while unsuccessfully trying to explain away her obvious prejudice for people of faith.

On an appearance this weekend with CNN’s State of the Union, Feinstein said:

“This is a woman who has no real trial or court experience,” she argued. “And, therefore, there is no record. She’s a professor, which is fine, but all we have to look at are her writings, and in her writings, she makes some statements which are questionable, which deserve questions.”

Barrett was nominated by President Trump to fill a vacancy on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Perhaps Feinstein is concerned with the idea of having a judge who clerked for Scalia, a “lion of the law” on the Circuit Court of Appeals. However, Feinstein’s comments are representative of a larger feeling within the Democratic party. This is illustrated by the fact that during the same hearing in which Feinstein told Barrett, “the dogma lives loudly within you,” another prominent Democrat, Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, asked her, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”

Questions and statements like these are entirely inappropriate and have no bearing whatsoever in determining Barrett’s qualifications and abilities.

Family Research Council President, Tony Perkins says:

The reality is, liberals have as many deep convictions as conservatives — they’re just not as often rooted in the Christian religion. So to suggest that they can be impartial and believers can’t is not only untrue, it’s unfair. Telling Barrett that the “dogma lives loudly within [her]” is to ignore the dogma that lives even louder within Senate Democrats.

C.C. Peckhold, writing for the Wall Street Journal says:

Sens. Feinstein and Durbin were troubled not by Ms. Barrett’s Catholicism, but by her failure to prove her religion could conform to a more dogmatic progressivism. The “religious test” Democrats want to impose isn’t about religion per se; it’s about ensuring that every religious claim can be bent to more comprehensive political aims. It’s about defining anyone who dissents from the mores of the sexual revolution as disqualified from public office. That’s what makes Ms. Feinstein’s questioning so chilling.

Yet Feinstein stressed during the CNN interview that she has no animosity towards people of faith. “I think Catholicism is a great religion. I have great respect for it,” Feinstein said. “I’ve known many of the archbishops who have been in our community, we’ve had dinner together, we’ve spoken together over many, many decades, and I’ve tried to be helpful to the church whenever I could.”

IFI Faith Forum
Join us in Medinah, Illinois, to hear world renowned Christian apologist Ray Comfort. Space is limited, don’t miss this special one time event. Click HERE for more information.

Tickets are just $10 each. Call (708) 781-9328 or purchase tickets below.

The men and women that you elect to the U.S. Congress in both chambers need to hear from you regularly on the important issues, and they need to hear from you today regarding the latest actions of Illinois’ own U.S. Senator Dick Durbin.

U.S. Senator Durbin along with radical Leftists such as Bernie Sanders aim to undermine the brilliant Electoral College established by our Founding Fathers. Durbin and Sanders and others are ignorant of the purpose and importance of the Electoral College. They argue that it’s a “relic” and “racist” in its design.

Electoral College opponents could all benefit from the teachings of Tara Ross, author of Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College. In two Prager University 5-minute videos (watch them here and here), Ross provides an excellent short civics lesson:

Why didn’t the Founders just make it easy, and let the presidential candidate with the most votes claim victory? Why did they create and why do we continue to need, this Electoral College?

The answer is critical to understanding not only the Electoral College but also America.

The Founders had no intention of creating a pure majority-rule democracy. They knew from careful study of history what most have forgotten today or never learned: pure democracies do not work.

They implode.

Democracy has been colorfully described as two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner. In a pure democracy, bare majorities can easily tyrannize the rest of a country. The Founders wanted to avoid this at all costs.

Both videos lay out the basics in an easy to understand fashion:

Our Founders so deeply feared a tyranny of the majority that they rejected the idea of a direct vote for President. That’s why they created the Electoral College. For more than two centuries it has encouraged coalition building and national campaigning, given a voice to both big and small states, and discouraged voter fraud.

In this video, Ross addresses a “well-financed, below-the-radar effort to do away with the Electoral College” that wants to do “exactly what the Founders rejected: award the job of president to the person who gets the most votes nationally.” Ross explains that the effort’s goal is to ask states to “sign a contract to give their presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner of the state’s popular vote.”

Ross gives an example of how this would have worked had it been in place in 2004:

[W]hen George W. Bush won the national vote, California’s electoral votes would have gone to Bush, even though John Kerry won that state by 1.2 million votes!

Can you imagine strongly Democratic California calmly awarding its electors to a Republican?

Our U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives need to hear from us on this important issue.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Mark Kirk, and your local U.S. Representative asking them to defend the Electoral College and to vigorously oppose the efforts to undermine the remarkable electoral system that has served our nation so very well. Speak up for the vision of the Founders by telling your lawmakers you want the Electoral College preserved.

Year-End Challenge

As you may know, IFI has a year-end matching challenge to raise $110,000. That’s right, a small group of IFI supporters are providing a $55,000 matching challenge to help support IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.

Please consider helping us reach this goal!  Your donation will help us stand strong in 2017!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 876
Tinley Park, Illinois 60477

According to an Associated Press report, the U.S. Senate voted to approve a $602 billion defense bill which also mandates that our daughters register for Selective Service and a possible future draft.  This gender blind, biologically indifferent proposal was sponsored by U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who also happens to chair the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee.

Both Illinois U.S. Senators, Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk, voted in favor of this irresponsible legislation.  The over all vote was 85 in favor, just 13 opposed.  U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) also voted for this atrocity.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) spoke out in opposition to the measure, saying in an official statement that this political correct bill “is being used as a vehicle to further agendas that have nothing to do with actually defending America. Despite the many laudable objectives in this bill, I could not in good conscience vote to draft our daughters into the military, sending them off to war and forcing them into combat.”

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (S. 2943), if passed by the U.S. House and signed into law by President Barack Obama, would require:

(1)  The duty to register imposed on male citizens and persons residing in the United States by subsection (a) shall apply to female citizens of the United States and female persons residing in the United States who attain the age of 18 years on or after January 1, 2018.

(2)  The responsibilities and rights of female registrants under this Act shall be the responsibilities and rights of male registrants under this Act, and shall be subject to such terms, conditions, and limitations as are applicable under the provisions of this Act to similarly situated male registrants.

(3)  Any reference in this Act to a registrant or other person subject to the duties, responsibilities, and rights of a registrant under this Act shall be deemed to refer to female citizens of the United States and female persons residing in the United States registering pursuant to this subsection.

The bill now heads over to the U.S. House.

Despite the bitter cold and snow that characterizes this time of year, we always manage to find ways that warm our hearts. Lately all you have to do is look at the gas prices.

According to the AAA, gasoline prices are starting to increase after dropping to the lowest levels since 2009.  Today, the national average now sitting at $2.11 (as of 2/04/15).  The lower cost for gasoline has placed an additional $14 billion of disposable income in consumer’s hands. Yes, there is joy to be found amidst the cold—that is until the politicians take notice.

Jumping at the first opportunity, top Congressional lawmakers in Washington D.C. are now proposing a raise of the federal fuel tax. Currently, the tax stands at 18.4 cents per gallon, as it has been since 1994.

Ironically, such calls are now being heard from the Republican Party, a group that just promised to cut taxes and spending this past election.

U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the new chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said, “I just think that option is there, it’s clearly one of the options.”  Other top ranking U.S. Senate Republicans such as U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and U.S. Senator John Thune (R-SD) have also expressed interest.

Leading Democrats, including U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), have been waiting for the right opportunity. Pelosi stated at a recent press conference, “If there’s ever going to be an opportunity to raise the gas tax, the time when gas prices are so low—oil prices are so low—is the time to do it.”

U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) has proposed H.R. 680 — a bill that would raise the gasoline tax from the current rate of 18.4 cents a gallon to 33.4 cents a gallon.  This legislation would phase in the 15 cent increase to the gas tax over a period of three years and then the tax would rise with inflation.  Illinois’ U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston) is one of two dozen federal lawmakers co-sponsoring this gasoline tax.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Trucking Association and AAA are also actively supporting this legislation.

Federal legislators say that the increase in revenue will go to the Highway Trust Fund for the purpose of rebuilding crumbling roadways and bridges, though there are also considerations for more funding for public transportation systems and even additional subsidies for oil companies.

To be fair, a tax on gasoline for the funding of infrastructure is in principle, a positive policy. Those who use the roads the most should pay a larger share of the upkeep cost. However, the economy is still in a fragile state, unemployment is slowly inching down, there are no signs of serious cuts in government spending, and the voters have just sent a strong message this past November that the tax and spend policies must stop.

Furthermore, the U.S. Congress has exerted little effort in ensuring that the current funds are properly spent. As the Heritage Foundation has pointed out, the Highway Trust Fund spends around 25 percent of its budget on ventures outside of that jurisdiction such as subways, streetcars, buses, bicycle and nature paths, and landscaping—all at the expense of road and bridge projects.

Just because gas prices are currently low, there’s no guarantee that they will continue as such.  This definitely does not warrant yet another tax increase on American families.

TAKE ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Illinois’ U.S. Senators Durbin and Kirk as well as your own U.S. Representative.  Tell them to stop any attempt to increase the gasoline tax.  Let them know that working families cannot afford to give the government more of our hard-earned money on a daily necessity such as gas.

The Left is wasting no time responding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 30th ruling upholding religious liberty. U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO) have introduced legislation to undo the protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)–the very law that the Court used to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties.

Unfortunately, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin has co-sponsored this ominous legislation.

The Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act (S. 2578) could be used to further undermine all existing federal protections of conscience and religious freedom regarding health coverage mandates. According to our friends at the American Family Association (AFA), “it specifically strikes at the heart of religious liberty by nullifying the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” which would affect even those organizations “run by Christians with deeply held convictions about abortion.“

U.S. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Reid has promised to bypass all committees to put this on the “fast track.” This means a vote could take place as early as this week. (Read about Sen. Reid’s racist comment about the Supreme Court.)  

This bill dictates that employers cannot interfere in their employee’s decisions about contraception and other health services through discrimination by (from Sen. Murray’s website):

• Banning employers from refusing to cover any health coverage–including contraceptive coverage–guaranteed to their employees and dependents under federal law.
• Stating that all federal laws do not permit employers to refuse to comply with the ACA requirement, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
• Including the exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement for houses of worship and the accommodation for religious non-profits.

This is a very pointed attack against conservative people of faith everywhere. Please take a few moments now to ask U.S. Senator Mark Kirk to oppose the misleadingly titled “Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014.” This liberty-quashing bill runs contrary to the religious liberty that Americans hold dear and the ruling the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a few weeks ago.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send and email or a fax to U.S. Senator Kirk urging him to reject S. 2578. 

Eric Metaxas at the IFI Annual Banquet
Sept. 19th in Rolling Meadows!  
Click HERE for details.

Democrat members of the U.S. Senate are seeking a blank check to limit free speech, and the National Right to Life Committee is warning about the impact. 

“This proposed constitutional amendment would give Congress and the 50 state legislatures complete authority to restrict and even criminalize any type of communication of the public that might influence elections,” claims National Right to Life spokesman Douglas Johnson.

Johnson is referring to S.J. Res. 19, which is being pushed by Democrats after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on campaign contributions in the Citizens United case.  

Government.gov describes the bill as a constitutional amendment that “grants Congress and the states the power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal and state elections, respectively.”

But Johnson says it is a “radical proposal that would cut the heart out of the First Amendment.”

He says the pro-life group is concerned because abortion is one topic among others “that are out of favor with the institutional news media or certain elites.”

“This is a blank check,” Johnson warns, adding that National Right to Life is telling senators the organization considers the bill a “key issue.” 

“And we do take this seriously, because 44 Democratic senators have already signed their names to this radical proposal,” he says.

The letter NRTL sent to senators can be read here. 

The proposed amendment is reminiscent of the Johnson Amendment, which virtually shut down pastors from speaking about politics from the pulpit, including limits on speech on social issues. 

Take ACTION:  Illinois’ U.S. Senator Dick Durbin is a co-sponsor of this anti-freedom legislation.  Please contact his office to ask him to withdraw his support.  Call his Washington D.C. office at (202) 224-2152 or send him a message through his website by clicking HERE.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is poised to rear its ugly and dangerous head again in the U.S. Senate in the next few weeks. The controversial Democrat-sponsored bill (S. 815) currently has 55 co-sponsors, only two of whom are Republicans: U.S. Senator Susan Collins (ME) and our very own, perpetually irksome U.S. Senator Mark Kirk, who has a particular fondness for all pro-homosexual legislation (don’t say we didn’t warn you). U.S. Senator Dick Durbin is also a co-sponsor.

ENDA “[p]rohibits employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity by covered entities (employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees).” If passed, no public elementary school or small business owner will be permitted to refuse to hire a man masquerading as a woman.

Every decent human opposes illegitimate discrimination based on objective characteristics that carry no behavioral implications, conditions, for example, like race, sex, or nation of origin. Many people, however, believe that making distinctions among behaviors is not only a legitimate human activity, but an essential one—essential, that is, for any moral society, particularly one in which religious liberty is jealously guarded.

ENDA will curtail religious liberty by prohibiting Americans from making distinctions between right and wrong actions even when those distinctions reflect deeply held religious convictions of orthodox Christians, orthodox Jews, and Muslims.

Our founding fathers knew that religious liberty was essential to a free society. It must never be subordinated to a manufactured civil liberty to engage with absolute unfettered freedom in acts of sexual perversion. And it is not unconstitutional to allow one’s religious beliefs to shape either business or political decisions. The Left does it all the time.

It is true that ENDA has a provision that says employers have the right to require an “employee to adhere to reasonable dress or grooming standards.” It would be foolish, however, for Americans to believe that this language will help employers who don’t want to hire cross-dressers because such perverse behavior violates their religious beliefs and will harm their business.  It would be foolish because progressives believe it is unreasonable to require gender-confused men and women to dress in accordance with their actual, objective sex. To a “progressive,” prohibiting a gender-confused man from wearing lipstick, falsies, and a dress to work as a first-grade teacher or toy store clerk is unreasonable. No young child should ever see cross-dressing (or even hear anything about gender confusion or homosexuality as is happening now in our public schools).

Every homosexuality-affirming policy and bill is based on the conflation of objective conditions with no moral/behavioral implications like race, sex, and nationality, with homosexuality, which is constituted by subjective feelings and volitional behaviors that many consider immoral. Are our foolish lawmakers willing to provide special protections to other conditions similarly constituted—conditions like polyamory, paraphilias, or incest? I can hear the howls of indignation from homosexual activists that their sexual proclivities and theirs alone constitute a morally positive identity. But others will stake that claim for theirs as well. And when “identity,” which in common usage is merely the aggregate of those feelings one chooses to act upon, becomes unassailable, we’re left with a society in which moral judgment is either wholly eradicated or left exclusively to those in positions of power.

Decent people should have compassion for those who are afflicted with gender confusion, gender dysphoria, or Gender Identity Disorder. But decency, compassion, and love do not require people to affirm disordered thinking as right thinking. Quite the opposite. And compassion and love do not require people to set aside their true beliefs about what behaviors are perverse and harmful to their livelihood. Real love requires that we first know what is true. This bill is based on false, destructive assumptions and must be defeated along with any lawmaker who supports it.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send your U.S. Senators in Washington D.C. an email or a fax asking them to please vote ‘NO’ on ENDA!
(Click HERE to read the current text of this bill.)

 Click HERE to support the work of IFI.

I often find the statements or actions of Illinois politicians embarrassing or worse. Watching U.S. Senator Dick Durbin’s interview with Bret Baier was one of those occasions. I cannot for the life of me understand why Illinoisans continue year after year to vote for men like Dick Durbin–particularly with Illinois in a state of perpetual decline.

The unflappable, congenial, and always civil Bret Baier (no Rachel Maddow or Bill O’Reilly here) tried indefatigably to get  Durbin to answer a simple question regarding the noticeable deletion of the word “God” from the 2012 Democratic platform. The phrase “God-given potential” appeared in the 2008 platform but was deleted from this year’s platform. Baier attempted multiple times to ask the obvious and reasonable question: “Why?” Durbin’s response was defensive, combative, rude, and evasive. The gentleman “doth protest too much, methinks.”

Below is a transcription of their exchange, which you can also watch here:

Baier: God was taken out of the platform, why do that?

Durbin: Well, I can just basically tell you if the narrative that is being presented on your station, and through your channel and your network is the Democrats are godless people, they ought to know better. God is not a franchise of the Republican Party

Baier: No, no, but…

Durbin: Those of us who believe in God and those of us who have dedicated our lives to helping others in the name of God don’t want to take a second seat to anyone who is suggesting that one word out of the platform means the Democrats across America are godless. Come on, Bret.

Baier: No, no, no – I don’t think that’s what’s being said. We’re reporting what’s in the platform. In 2008, God was mentioned once; in 2004, it was mentioned seven times; in 2000 it was mentioned four times. So, it’s just a question…

Durbin: So, what’s your point?

Baier: The question is, why take it out this time?

Durbin: What I’m basically saying to you is if you’re trying to draw some conclusion that the Democrats are godless, present your evidence, present your evidence.

Baier: I’m not trying to draw any conclusion. I’m just asking the question: why was the word taken out?

Durbin: I’m just telling you, you are carping on a trifle. We know that both parties are devoted to this country; both parties are God-fearing parties. Let’s get on with the agenda about creating jobs in America, about justice in this country.

Baier: And we’re going to talk about that in a second. We’re talking about the platform here, and there are two changes that we just noted, one is that God was taken out from 2008 to 2012 and two, that Jerusalem was not mentioned. I’m not drawing conclusions; I’m just asking why these changes were made.

Durbin: Bret, let me just say, I chaired the platform committee for two Democratic conventions. We produced the most unread document in the history of American politics, to suggest that this document and the insertion of two words here and one word there, now defines politics in America suggests to me that you’re not focusing on the real issues that Americans care about.

Baier: But Senator, you know…

Durbin: They want the American people to get back to work.

Baier: I understand that…

Durbin: We want to continue to create jobs.

Baier: Let’s talk about that in one second. You know that Democrats in Tampa talked about the Republican platform and what was and was not in there. So, when I’m asking you about these two changes and two words, I’m just asking why. I’m not drawing conclusions.

Durbin: I’m telling you, your conclusions are wrong, if you’re drawing them.

So, Durbin conceded that Baier may not have been drawing conclusions, but Durbin knows that if Baier had been drawing conclusions, he, Durbin, knew what they were and that they were wrong. Where is Professor Irwin Corey when we need him?

Durbin appears to have the inside scoop on the numbers of God-fearing people versus atheists in the two parties. Maybe he’s right. Maybe the number of God-fearing people in the two parties is exactly the same. If so, that makes the deletion of the one reference to God from the Democratic platform all the more perplexing.

Later Baier asked Charles Krauthammer about the deletion of the reference to God (a mere “trifle” to Durbin), which has even some moderate Democrats concerned. Krauthammer responded:

Platforms don’t really tell you what’s going to happen. But when you compare today with what people used to believe, used to say, and used to proclaim, and you see these glaring changes, you know that something has changed in the party. This is one place that Obama has led from in front and not from behind, moving the party—not just himself. And that, I think, is extremely significant.

Ditto.