Truth is, abortion is not health care. And the truth is the number of taxpayer funded abortions is increasing dramatically in Illinois following Governor Rauner’s signature on House Bill 40.

A majority of Americans including many mainline Christians support legal abortion, but many religious conservatives say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, according to the Pew Research Center.

Those religious conservatives are now hoping that Roe v. Wade will be overturned in light of President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, a practicing Catholic, to the U.S. Supreme Court. They’re optimistic that having a fifth conservative on the bench could lead to a reversal of the 1973 landmark case that made abortion a constitutional right. Kavanaugh gave a speech last year in which he praised former Chief Justice William Rehnquist for dissenting in Roe v. Wade.

A Pew survey last year showed that 57 percent of Americans support legal abortion, while 40 percent believe it should be illegal in most or all cases. A Pew 2014 Religious Landscape Study found that evangelicals tend to oppose legal abortion while people in mainline Protestant churches, as well as Jews, atheists, and agnostics, tend to support it. While Catholics are divided, the Roman Catholic Church continues to speak out against abortion.

Sixty-six percent of Southern Baptists are opposed to legal abortion, compared to only 8 percent of Unitarian Universalists and 18 percent of Episcopalians. Other religious groups with a high percentage opposed include Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christians affiliated with the Assemblies of God.

In a January 2018 news release, Pew reported:

Among those who do identify with a religion, the majority view about abortion among members of a particular group often mirrors that group’s official policy on abortion. This is the case with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon church) and the Southern Baptist Convention – both churches oppose abortion, as do most members of those churches. And the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Unitarian Universalist Association, and Reform and Conservative Judaism, for example, all support abortion rights, in line with most of their adherents.

There are, however, cases where the views of a church’s members don’t align with its teachings on abortion. For instance, while the Roman Catholic Church is an outspoken critic of abortion, U.S. Catholics were divided on the issue in the 2014 survey, with 48% supportive of legal abortion and 47% opposed.  (See chart HERE.)

In June 2017, the Southern Baptist Convention at its annual meeting denounced Planned Parenthood and called on Congress to fully defund it. The convention passed a resolution that called out the “immoral agenda and practices of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates, especially their role in the unjust killing each year of more than 300,000 precious unborn babies, its use of particularly gruesome illegal abortion methods, and its profiteering from harvesting unborn babies’ tissues and organs.”

By contrast, representatives of mainline denominations have been vocal in support of legal abortion. This past March, 68 faith leaders in Iowa wrote a letter published in the Des Moines Register criticizing a bill in the state legislature that would make it illegal for a woman to get an abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. The letter said in part:

Every person has the right to their own personal and religious beliefs and to live their life how they determine is best for them. The government does not have the right to infringe on the freedoms or privacy of Iowa women based on those religious beliefs. Every woman deserves to consult her values, faith, and doctor when making a decision about her body and her pregnancy. Any law that strips a woman of her faith and tries instead to legislate her values for her is immoral.

Republican state lawmakers in Iowa were able to pass the fetal heartbeat bill despite objections from Democrats. No Democrats supported the bill. It was signed into law by Republican Governor Kim Reynolds, but a judge blocked it from taking effect July 1 as a result of a lawsuit filed by abortion activists.

The Chicago Tribune has reported that more out-of-state women have been coming to Illinois for abortions because of less restrictive laws compared to those in surrounding states. The overall number of abortions had dropped, however, but is now on the rise, an increase attributed to a state law passed last year that expands taxpayer subsidies for abortions. Under the new law, which took effect January 1, Medicaid recipients and state employees and their dependents covered by state employee insurance can get taxpayer-subsidized abortions.

Read more:  Illinois Taxpayer Funded Abortions Increase at Least 274 Percent in First Six Months of 2018

Spread the Word! 

Do you have friends or acquaintances who could benefit from IFI’s informational emails? If you do, please forward this IFI email to them and encourage them to subscribe our e-mail list!

It is only because of concerned citizens like you that we are able to continue promoting pro-family values in the Prairie State.

Written by Pastor Myles Holmes

Tonight’s expected announcement of Trump’s pick for the U.S. Supreme Court and the upcoming confirmation process to fill Justice Kennedy’s seat marks a historic moment for the nation. Let us cover it in prayer.

Heavenly Father, Creator of all there is, Lord and Master of time and history, we praise You today for the blessings You have bestowed upon this great nation.

Our freedoms and liberties, our prosperity and bounty, are not the work of the hands of man, but they are Your mercies and grace upon us.

We acknowledge that we have failed you over and over again, we have mocked Your Word and spat upon Your law.

We have called good evil, we have celebrated evil, and truth lies fallen in the streets.

But You have always had a people in these United States who have cried out to You and Your mercies.

We your people cry out to You again.

You are a Miracle Worker of signs and wonders. You open doors that no one can shut. You make rivers in the desert, and You make a way through the sea and a path through the waters. You restore the years that the locusts have eaten.

We praise and thank You today that there are so many signs in this nation of our prayers being answered.

We pray for a continued spirit of repentance and conviction.

We pray this spirit of repentance and conviction will emanate from the church and affect every sphere of society … from our streets and businesses and  schools and local city halls, to the halls of the U.S. Congress and the White House.

We thank You for those you have placed in servant leadership over this nation.

We pray your protection and blessing and grace upon our President Donald Trump, Vice president Mike Pence, the cabinet members, and their families.

May they humbly seek you daily for direction, instruction, and Godliness. Grant to them insight to lead and foresight to anticipate what must be done to turn this nation back to You.

Now Father, You have granted us another opportunity to appoint a new U.S. Supreme Court justice to interpret the laws of the U.S. Constitution of this great land.

Heavenly Father, we cry out for mercy and Your leadership.

We pray that President Trump, Mike Pence and their advisors will be led by your wisdom, discernment, discretion and courage to appoint a man or woman who will serve on the U.S. Supreme Court with character and competence.

We pray in the Mighty and Matchless Name of Jesus Christ against all obstruction and hindering forces; we bind every evil, demonic power that would resist a man or woman of righteousness being appointed to this Court.

We know that righteousness exalts a nation.

We know that our laws and legislation must reflect an honoring of the God Who has blessed this nation.

We pray that this U.S. Supreme Court Justice appointment will be one who honors this great Constitution that you have blessed this nation with, respects the original intent of its authors, and believes in the individual freedoms that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

We pray that unjust and immoral laws will be overturned.

We pray that justice will run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream. Amos 5:24

We pray that all distortion and deception of laws will cease.

We pray that all perversions of justice will come to an end.

We pray that morality and decency will return to the chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court.

We pray that our justices will be blessed with moral courage, supernatural strength, and the backbone to speak against evil and to support the good, the right and the true.

We pray that our U.S. Supreme Court justices will continue to uphold freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and thought, to enable Your church to boldly rebuke evil, courageously defend the Truth and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.

We, your people, pray for Your blessing on the United States of America, we ask you for another great revival, another great move of your Spirit sweeping millions into the Kingdom, and pushing back the darkness. May Your Kingdom come and may Your Will be done.

May Your people remain faithful and humble, but bold as a lion to speak for righteousness and truth.

Protect our President and Vice President and their families from every evil spoken against them and every plan and plot of destruction, and draw each of them closer to You as they lead this great nation.

Send your Spirit,

Send revival,

Build your church that the gates of hell cannot prevail against,

let no flesh glory in Your Presence,

May the Name of Christ be high and lifted up above every other name,

the Name of Jesus,

It’s in His Name we pray,

Amen and Amen.

Pastor Myles Holmes (holy terror to mediocrity) is Lead Pastor REVIVE Church in Collinsville, Illinois and an IFI board member.  You can find him on Facebook and on Twitter @PastorMHolmes      

Written by Samuel Smith

A federal court has granted a Christian liberal arts college in Pennsylvania a permanent injunction against the Obama-era abortion pill mandate that required the school to be complicit in providing health care coverage that violated its religious convictions.

On Thursday, Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted permanent relief to Geneva College, a liberal arts school affiliated with the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.

Conti ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services Obamacare contraception mandate violated the college’s rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by requiring the school to facilitate coverage of services to which it has religious objections.

“[T]he court finds that Geneva is entitled to declaratory relief that defendants’ enforcement of the mandate … and implementing regulations against Geneva and requiring its compliance with the accommodation procedure with respect to providing, paying for, making accessible, or otherwise facilitating or causing access to coverage or payments through an insurance company or other third party for contraceptive coverage services to which Geneva College has religious objections … violates Geneva’s rights under RFRA,” the court document reads.

It has been an eventful term for the U.S. Supreme Court, which has provided many closely decided cases and ended with the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. For those interested in free speech and religious liberty, there have been plenty of decisions to keep track of and digest. Here is what you need to know.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

The story is well-known. Jack Phillips, a Christian cake shop owner from Colorado, refused to create a cake for the same-sex “wedding” of two men. They filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which held that Mr. Phillips violated the state’s public accommodation laws. Much of the litigation centered around whether creating a wedding cake fell under the free expression protections of the First Amendment, but the Court punted on this argument, leaving it for a future case. Instead, the Court ruled for Mr. Phillips on two separate grounds.

First, the Commission did not employ religiously neutral standards when deciding Mr. Phillips case, and instead showed unwarranted hostility towards his Christian faith. One official on the Commission even referred to Mr. Phillips’ faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use.”

Second, the Court found that the Commission had used different standards for different bakery owners. An individual named Bill Jack (no relation to Jack Phillips) went to several bakeries asking them to create a cake with a message critical of homosexuality derived from the Bible and was—unsurprisingly—refused service. When complaints were filed, the Commission found that bakeries can refuse to make a cake with a message they deem to be derogatory.

The popular narrative is that this case was decided on narrow grounds and sets little precedent for future cases. However, Masterpiece has already proven to be more influential than that narrative suggests. Anti-religious animus by government officials is common in religious liberty cases, and there’s no better example than Arlene’s Flowers.

Arlene’s Flowers Inc. v. Washington

Similar to Jack Phillips, Barronelle Stutzman, a Washington florist, refused to offer her services for a same-sex wedding. However, in this case, when she refused to create a floral arrangement for a same-sex couple, it was not the couple who took action. Rather, the state’s attorney general, on his own initiative, filed a complaint against Ms. Stutzman, showing unusual hostility towards her religious beliefs. This led to the Washington Supreme Court holding that Ms. Stutzman engaged in unlawful discrimination. However, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the decision and remanded it back to the state supreme court to consider the decision in light of Masterpiece.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

This case had less headline appeal than Masterpiece but will likely end up being the more influential in First Amendment jurisprudence. The Court found that California’s Reproductive FACT Act, which forced pro-life pregnancy centers to post disclosures about the state’s abortion services, to be a violation of the pregnancy centers’ free speech rights. The decision was important on several fronts. Most notably, the Court refused to create a lesser standard of First Amendment protection for “professional speech.” The argument was that the state should be given greater power to prevent and compel the speech of professionals (like doctors, lawyers, and mental health counselors) than the usual First Amendment protections would allow. But Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, criticized such “professional speech” doctrine as being a tool to suppress unpopular ideas or information. The decision may open possible litigation on the issue of so-called reparative therapy bans, which ban professional counselors from talking with minors about their unwanted same-sex sexual attraction.

In his concurrence, Justice Kennedy came down particularly hard on California for its intolerance of the pro-life viewpoint:

The California Legislature included in its official history the congratulatory statement that the Act was part of California’s legacy of “forward thinking.” But it is not forward thinking to force individuals to “be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view [they] fin[d] unacceptable.” It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come.

Trump v. Hawaii

This case stems from then-presidential candidate Donald Trump’s promise of a “Muslim ban” during the 2016 presidential campaign. Initially, President Trump signed an order that banned entry in the U.S. from seven predominantly Muslim countries regardless of visa status. However, after getting blocked by the lower courts because of its disproportionate effect on Muslims and because of several anti-Muslim statements from the Trump administration, the president issued a moderated version of the order. This time, the order did not outright ban travel from the seven countries but it did add extra scrutiny before people were allowed to enter the U.S. The final order was also backed by evidence that the nations with restricted access posed legitimate national security risks and were not just chosen based on anti-Muslim animus.

Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that although five of the seven countries with restricted access were predominantly Muslim, the countries made up only 8% of the world’s Muslim population and were previously designated as posing national security risks. The decision continues the longstanding judicial deference to the Executive Branch on decisions affecting national security. The High Court also renounced the infamous Korematsu v. United States decision, which allowed the executive branch to establish internment camps for Japanese Americans during World War II.

Janus v. AFSCME

This case is not just of interest for its First Amendment jurisprudence but also its close connection to Illinois politics. Illinois was one of the 22 states that allowed unions to charge nonmembers fees for the costs of collective bargaining with employers. Mark Janus, a government social worker from Springfield, filed suit against Illinois arguing that the government requiring him to pay a private organization like a union violated his First Amendment right to free speech and association. By subsidizing the union’s administrative costs, Janus argued that he was being forced by the government to support the union’s political activism. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in a 5-4 decision. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the law “violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern” like tax increases or collective bargaining rights. One important distinction is that this ruling only applies to public sector unions, not to any in the private sector.

Rowan County v. Lund

One notable case that did not get the U.S. Supreme Court review comes from Rowan County, North Carolina, where the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal barred the opening prayer at county board meetings. The prayer was led by the elected commissioners, who took turns leading at each meeting. Three residents were offended by the prayers and sued the county. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the prayer policy as violating the Establishment Clause despite clear precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court allowing public prayers in Town of Greece v. Galloway. Unfortunately, the High Court denied cert (i.e., declined to review the lower court decision) on the county’s appeal, and the Fourth Circuit’s decision stands.

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Within hours of Justice Kennedy announcing his imminent retirement, voices on the left began announcing the imminent overturning of Roe v. Wade.

David Cole, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said, “If Donald Trump, who has promised to overturn Roe v. Wade, picks someone who is anti-choice, the future of Roe v. Wade is very much in question.”

More emphatically, Slate magazine ran a story with the headline, “The End of Roe,” declaring, “Anthony Kennedy’s retirement ensures the Supreme Court will allow states to outlaw abortion.”

And CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin tweeted, “Anthony Kennedy is retiring. Abortion will be illegal in twenty states in 18 months. #SCOTUS.”

During his appearance on CNN, he added that there was “just no doubt” that Roe v. Wade would be overturned, stating, “Roe v. Wade is doomed. It is gone because Donald Trump won the election and because he’s going to have the chance to appoint two Supreme Court justices.”

As stated succinctly in a tweet from Planned Parenthood Action, “With Kennedy retiring, the right to access abortion in this country is on the line. #SaveSCOTUS.”

May all these fears and warnings prove true! May we see Roe v. Wade overturned speedily, in our time. And may the many women who struggle with their pregnancies find new hope and learn that there are better alternatives than abortion.

Of course, it is too early to proclaim the end of Roe v. Wade. And for more than 55 million babies who have already lost their lives, this is too little, too late.

But, based on his performance to date, it is highly likely, if not almost certain, that President Trump will nominate a solid, pro-life justice. And it is then very likely that Roe v. Wade would be overturned in the years ahead.

This would be beyond historic. It would be unprecedented. It would mark the first time that the court made a radical, anti-life turn only to reverse course decades later. And it would mark a major turning point in the cultural life of our nation, since the overturning of Roe v. Wade seemed like an impossible dream for years.

Although I was almost entirely unaware of the battle for life in 1973 (I was 18 at the time and I don’t remember hearing a word about abortion in my church), older colleagues have told me how bleak things appeared at that time. They have even related that pro-lifers were more despised back than those who hold to traditional family values are today. That’s saying something!

Back in 1973, after the Roe v. Wade ruling, pro-life forces were in disarray. Yet, Nina Martin reported in the New Republic in 2014, they quickly mounted “a push for a constitutional amendment affirming that life begins at conception.”  But, she explains, “that first effort fizzled, and it’s only in recent years that a new wave of pro-life activists—many of them born after Roe and educated in fundamentalist Christian settings—have once again seized on personhood as a way not just of weakening Roe, but of overturning it. In state after state, they have been pushing to have their beliefs enshrined in policy.”

So, according to Martin, a lot of the recent success in opposing Roe v. Wade is due to the efforts of conservative Christians born after 1973. In other words, they were born after abortion on demand was considered a settled issue in America. After the battle for the unborn was apparently lost. After our side was told to throw in the towel.

But that was not the end of the story. As Austin Ruse noted, “Social conservatives point out that the number of young people opposed to abortion used to be equally bleak among the young but is now trending their way.”

What makes Ruse’s point especially poignant is that he made this comment in a short article documenting the rising acceptance of same-sex relationships among young Republicans. In light of that, he suggested that, “All this leaves open the possibility that Republican opposition to same-sex marriage may fade with time.”

That’s exactly what was expected with regard to the battle for life in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade. The die has been cast. The verdict has been rendered. The older, conservative opposition will soon die out. As for the generations that follow, abortion on demand will be the law of the land, unopposed and largely, if not universally, embraced.

And this, of course, is what we are told unceasingly with regard to same-sex “marriage,” almost word for word. Why couldn’t we see a cultural reversal there as well?

Today, we stand on the precipice of undoing the monstrous injustice of Roe v. Wade. Who’s to say we won’t live to see the reversal of Obgergefell vs. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court’s overreaching decision to redefine marriage?

It is for good reason that CNN is already writing about, “What Anthony Kennedy’s retirement means for abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action and the future of the Supreme Court.”

And Vox opines that “a Court without Kennedy is substantially more likely to: Overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states (and maybe the federal government too) to ban most or all abortions. . . . Rule in favor of religious challenges to anti-discrimination law, and perhaps, in an extreme case, reverse some past Supreme Court rulings on gay rights.”

All this sounds totally within reach today. And it could hinge on the next appointee to the Court. Let’s pray for God’s mercy on our nation, for the continuing turning of hearts towards life, and for righteous justices to adjudicate in our courts.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

So much good news from the U.S. Supreme Court this week, including the announcement of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s impending retirement and the 5-4 decision in the NIFLA v. Becerra case, which asserts that the speech of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers is, indeed, protected speech.

Justice Kennedy surprised the nation by announcing his retirement at the end of July, giving President Donald Trump another opportunity to continue to restore respect for constitutional principles and historical American values. Perhaps we will see that proverbial long arc of justice bending more often toward justice.

Justice Kennedy surprised again, this time in NIFLA v. Becerra. Fascistic California lawmakers eager to impose their beliefs by any unethical means at their disposal passed “The California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act” (FACT Act) which requires the following:

Clinics that are licensed must notify women that California provides free or low-cost services, including abortions, and give them a phone number to call. Its stated purpose is to make sure that state residents know their rights and what health care services are available to them. Unlicensed clinics must notify women that California has not licensed the clinics to provide medical services.

Several crisis pregnancy centers sued, claiming that the law abridged their First Amendment speech protections. A district court voted against them, they appealed the decision, and then the nightmarish 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals voted against them as well. That decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, and in a 5-4 decision with Kennedy joining the majority, the Court decided in favor of the crisis pregnancy centers.

In his concurrence in NIFLA v. Becerra, Kennedy ridiculed and scolded the California legislature:

The California Legislature included in its official history the congratulatory statement that the Act was part of California’s legacy of ‘forward thinking.’ But it is not forward thinking to force individuals to ‘be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view [they] fin[d] unacceptable.’ It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come. Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.

This decision means, among other things, that pro-life crisis pregnancy centers cannot be forced to communicate information that violates their beliefs.

Kennedy used this teachable moment to educate lawmakers on the constitutional limits on their pernicious efforts to abuse the law to advance their ideological views. It’s a lesson children should be taught repeatedly in government schools but aren’t.

Buried within the NIFLA decision is something even more remarkable. According to Curtis Schube, Legal Counsel for the Pennsylvania Family Policy Institute, “NIFLA also overturned speech restrictions on therapists who assist people with unwanted same sex attraction.” Schube continues:

Laws which ban sexual orientation change efforts (“SOCE” for short) have increasingly entered the national conversation, most recently in California. Before California’s recent attempts to ban all forms of SOCE at any age, California already had such a law in place for minors. The law considered it “unprofessional conduct” to “seek to change sexual orientation” for a minor. Any counselor who violated the law faced professional discipline.  

California’s more recent SOCE laws take an even more extreme position. These laws ban all therapy that aims to change, or even reduce, sexual attraction to the same sex. Therefore, a patient who wants SOCE therapy cannot receive that service without risk to the professional counselor.

In Pickup v. Brown, same sex attracted minors and their parents, as well as counselors who wished to provide their services, claimed that this law violates their First Amendment rights to free speech and free expression. The Ninth Circuit, in 2013, determined that counseling is not speech, but rather professional “conduct.” The “First Amendment does not prevent a state from regulating treatment,” the Ninth Circuit concluded.

The Third Circuit upheld a similar law in New Jersey using the same logic in the 2014 case, King v. Governors of New Jersey. In relying partly upon Pickup, the Third Circuit concluded that counseling is speech (rather than conduct) but classifies that speech as professional speech. The Third Circuit states that a “professional’s services stems largely from her ability to apply… specialized knowledge to a client’s individual circumstances… Thus, we conclude that a licensed professional does not enjoy the full protection of the First Amendment.”

In the NIFLA case, the Ninth Circuit had justified the requirement for pregnancy centers to advertise for abortion as “professional speech,” just like the Ninth and Third Circuits had done for SOCE laws. The Supreme Court opinion overturning the Ninth Circuit’s NIFLA opinion, specifically identified Pickup and King as examples of “professional speech” protected by the First Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas… stated: “Some Courts of Appeals have recognized ‘professional speech’ as a separate category of speech that is subject to different rules.” However, “speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by ‘professionals.’”

This is a paradigm shift in the existing precedents for SOCE bans.

Thomas seized the opportunity to provide protections to many other professions as well. “Professionals might have a host of good-faith disagreements, both with each other and with the government, on many topics in their respective fields.” He identifies doctors and nurses who disagree on the prevailing opinions on assisted suicide or medical marijuana as examples of good faith disagreements. So too are lawyers and marriage counselors who disagree on prenuptial agreements and divorces, and bankers and accountants who disagree on how to commit money to savings or tax reform. One would have to conclude that Justice Thomas’ intent is to protect all professionals from being regulated on matters of good faith disagreement.

There is no settled judgment within the mental health community regarding the efficacy and value of counseling for minors or adults who experience unwanted same-sex attraction. There is no settled judgment about the cause or causes of such attraction. Even the liberal American Psychological Association acknowledges that causation is unknown and is likely—in its view—a result of both nature and nurture. There is, however, fairly broad consensus within academia—including among homosexual scholars that “sexual orientation” is fluid. Kudos to Justice Thomas for providing a constitutional pathway to overturning bans that restrict the First Amendment speech rights of mental health professionals.

And kudos to Justice Anthony Kennedy for his week of surprises.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Might-NIFLA-Help-Overturn-Bans-on-Same-Sex-Attraction-Counseling.mp3

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

Many will see the proposal outlined in my previous article as a ridiculous fantasy and politically impossible. To them I’d say that almost everything is politically impossible until it is made politically possible. Selling a plan will be hard work, so we will need leaders with a genuine work ethic to start the process. (They can learn that political work ethic by watching President Donald Trump.)

You know what’s already politically possible and, in fact, quite easy? Bowing to the powers of the government unions, keeping the public in the dark about just how bad things are, and allowing the state to go forward into bankruptcy. Don’t doubt me on this: bankruptcy is in our future. That has been my view for many years, but I do have to thank Mark Glennon of Wirepoints for bringing this to my attention at a recent press conference:

William Isaac knows insolvency when he sees it, and how to deal with it. As Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from 1981 to 1985, he was on the forefront of the banking crisis at the time. He founded The Secura Group, a leading consulting firm in financial regulation, and is a respected voice in the world of finance.

Bankruptcy, not just for Chicago, but for Illinois as well, he says.

“The city and the state should act now to restructure their liabilities and put the fiscal mess behind them. This can be accomplished by utilizing Chapter 9 and other tools Congress just gave Puerto Rico,” wrote Isaac in an opinion piece published Thursday in The Bond Buyer.

Tax increases and spending cuts won’t work, he wrote:

In the short run tax increases can partly bridge the deficits, but even this benefit will prove pyrrhic. Recent tax increases have already made the state and the city less competitive venues. As for expenditures, there’s still fat that can be cut from the budget, but it’s difficult to see this making more than a dent.

Why is his opinion a watershed? He’s the first major financial figure to outright call for bankruptcy. Others have said to start thinking about it or that it might be needed eventually — for Chicago. Pass the needed federal legislation now, says Isaac. Federal legislation would be needed to allow a whole state to file for bankruptcy. “Once a financial mess of the first order is at hand, as is the case with Chicago and Illinois, it can be far better to act decisively by restructuring rather than prolonging the pain.”

The above is from an article from almost two years ago. (Wirepoints is excellent. Readers should sign up for their email newsletter.)

Here is the simple and easy-to-remember order of upcoming events that could save our state:

1.)  Bruce Rauner loses and J.B. Pritzker wins and finds out there is no money to fund all his promises. (Of course, J.B. already knows that, right? He can’t be that uninformed, right?)

2.)  Republicans privately fund what Jeanne Ives couldn’t get publicly funded last year—a serious study of how we can tax ourselves in a sane manner here in Illinois. This study need not be expensive or take long to accomplish. Let’s look at all those states that manage to have schools and police officers without taxing people out of their homes.

3.)  “Big and bold” becomes how Republican legislators and candidates think and act and the GOP starts winning more elections.

4.)  Illinois fiscal reality is reckoned with, and the causes of the current mess aren’t kicked down the road any longer.

Tax reform. School choice. Taxpayers freed from funding exorbitant pensions that now eat up 20-25 percent of the state budget. (Private sector companies have been getting out of the pension business for decades. It’s time for government to follow their lead.) Bankruptcy. Illinois stops being a national laughing stock and instead gets a fresh start. And families and jobs move here instead of away.

Laugh if you want, but William Isaac nailed it: “Once a financial mess of the first order is at hand, as is the case with Chicago and Illinois, it can be far better to act decisively by restructuring rather than prolonging the pain.”

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click here to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

Full disclosure: I hate roasts of any kind.

White House Correspondents’ Dinner gut-busting pasquinade by jokester Michelle Wolf makes it difficult to refrain from being as despicable as she was.

First, some of her jokes:

“Of course, Trump isn’t here…. I would drag him here myself, but it turns out the president of the United States is the one p***y you’re not allowed to grab.”

“I know there’s a lot of people who want me to talk about Russia and Putin and collusion, but I’m not gonna do that because there’s a lot of liberal media here, and I’ve never wanted to know what any of you look like when you orgasm. Except for you, Jake Tapper.”

“I’m never really sure what to call Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Is it Sarah Sanders, is it Sarah Huckabee Sanders, is it Cousin Huckabee, is it Aunt Huckabee Sanders? What’s Uncle Tom but for white women who disappoint other white women?”

She has a First Amendment right to be nasty, brutish, and vulgar, but that doesn’t mean doing so is right. I guess if you call it a “joke,” it’s not bullying. Last night was a teachable moment for all those kids who take pleasure in making nasty sport of others. Wolf taught them that it’s okay to be thoughtless, mean-spirited, and distasteful as long as you’re part of the cool crowd–you know, the crowd that’s on the “right side of history,” like the sanctimonious Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, and David Letterman.

Oh, and here’s another of her rib-ticklers, this one on abortion–a topic that’s always good for a laugh:

“Don’t knock it till you try it. And when you do try it, really knock it, you gotta get that baby out of there.”

One tidbit of info about Wolf from CNN editor-at-large Chris Cilizza: “Wolf knew exactly what she was doing…. Did the average person know who Wolf was before Saturday night?… She is the talk of every Sunday talk show…. On a related note, her Netflix series, ‘The Break with Michelle Wolf’–comes on May 27.”

Vulgar, mean, divisive, self-serving, and calculating. Wolf should go into politics–on the cool kids’ team.

Take ACTION: Please click HERE to contact the White House Correspondents’ Association to express your view on Michelle Wolf’s performance.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Michelle-Wolfs-Lewd-Lupine-Pasquinade.mp3

Worldview Conference THIS SATURDAY!

Worldview has never been so important than it is today!  The contemporary culture is shaping the next generation’s understanding of faith far more than their faith is shaping their understanding of culture. The annual IFI Worldview Conference is a phenomenal opportunity to reverse that trend.

This year we are excited to have well-know apologist John Stonestreet leading our session.  Please join us this Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

Written by Rob Chambers

President Donald Trump nominated Mike Pompeo, current Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director, to become the next U.S. Secretary of State.

During a recent Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing, Mr. Pompeo was asked about past comments he made about his religious views on marriage and sexuality. At a church event in 2015, Mr. Pompeo commented on the U.S. Supreme Court opinion that forced states to recognize homosexual “marriage.” Mr. Pompeo quoted a pastor who had said our nation had “endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle.”

U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) took issue with Mr. Pompeo’s past acknowledgment of the national sin of condoning homosexuality and wanted to know if he still held that view. Sen. Booker asked Mr. Pompeo: “Is gay being a perversion?”…”Yes or no – do you believe gay sex is a perversion?”…”So, so you do not believe it’s appropriate for two gay people to marry?”

Mr. Pompeo answered Sen. Booker in the affirmative saying, “Senator, I continue to hold that view…” Meaning Mr. Pompeo maintains the biblical view that homosexuality is a sexual sin, a perversion before God. Mr. Pompeo continued saying, “My respect for every individual, regardless of sexual orientation, is the same.” Christians can and should detest sin, but still love the sinner.

Sen. Booker offered a conflicting response to Mr. Pompeo saying, “Your views do matter…and I do not necessarily concur that you are putting forward the values of our nation when you believe that there are people in this country who are perverse…” (Emphasis added).

Sen. Booker is saying that Mr. Pompeo’s views on homosexuality “do matter” as an individual, but such a person as Mr. Pompeo cannot hold these religious views and still be a qualified nominee for the U.S. Secretary of State.

Sen. Booker’s lack of concurrence or refusal to vote for Mr. Pompeo on the basis of his religious beliefs is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution. Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution clearly provides that there shall be no religious test for any person to public office. It states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (Emphasis added.)

When Sen. Booker took the oath of office to the U.S. Senate, he swore he would “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution of the United States. Sen. Booker has violated his oath of office, and the Senate should censure or condemn his radical, unconstitutional comments.

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.

This article originally posted at AFA.net

Federal judges sit on the bench for life and can either uphold the law or rule like tyrants. This puts judicial appointments right near the top of the most important things a president can do.

The newest U.S. Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch, has already shown what a difference a constitutionalist can make. But we need many more to counter the hundreds of Clinton, Obama and Jimmy Carter-appointed judges who issue zany rulings that override common sense and thwart democratically enacted popular will.

A case in point is U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves, a 2010 Obama appointee. In March, he issued a temporary restraining order to keep Mississippi’s new, 15-week abortion ban from taking effect.

Judge Reeves buys into the “viability” definition of human life beginning at 23 weeks. By contrast, science has confirmed that from the moment of conception, an entirely unique human being with DNA from mother and father is alive and growing exponentially. By the eighth week, the baby has a beating heart, arms, legs, organs and human shape. The judge’s ruling implies that babies before the 23^rd week are something other than human, and so, practically speaking, ending their lives is no more consequential than getting rid of a mole or skin tag.

“If there is no viability the state has no real interest in telling a woman what to do with her body,” the judge said, deploying the abortion industry’s arbitrary rationale. 

In 2014, Judge Reeves struck down Mississippi’s marriage law, which voters had approved by 86 percent to 14 percent. Seeing nothing uniquely valuable in the male-female complementarity central to marriage, he likened resistance to racism. This would be news to black and Hispanic Mississippians who voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as between one man and one woman and reject any comparison to morally neutral racial characteristics.

Throughout his two terms, Barack Obama made good on his goal to stack the federal judiciary with leftwing ideologues like Judge Reeves. His 333 appointees (George W. Bush had 330, Bill Clinton 379 and Ronald Reagan 384), which included two U.S. Supreme Court justices, have been hard at work to “fundamentally transform” America.

One of the most dramatic turns was on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from nine federal district courts in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina and federal administrative agencies. In 2007, Republican appointees held a 7-5 majority. After six Obama appointments plus retirements, Democratic appointees now dominate 9-7 and have made their presence felt.

For example, in April 2016, a three-judge Fourth Circuit panel with two Obama appointees ruled 2 to 1 against school officials in Gloucester County, Va. that a girl identifying as a boy could use boys’ restrooms and the locker room.

Three months after the transgender ruling, a three-judge Fourth Circuit panel comprising two Obama appointees and a Clinton judge struck down North Carolina’s voter ID law on a 3-0 vote, accusing lawmakers of discriminatory intent. The Left has long argued absurdly that requiring voters to show some ID when voting is “racist.”

Another key Obama judicial takeover was at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, perhaps the second most influential court in the country because it hears cases involving federal power.

In 2008, conservatives had a 6-3 edge. Mr. Obama quickly made four appointments, flipping it to a 7-4 Democrat majority. In June 2016, an Obama appointee and a Clinton appointee on a three-judge D.C. appeals panel upheld the Federal Communications Commission’s power grab of the Internet in the name of “net neutrality.” The ruling was a reversal of the same court’s opinion in 2010, when it ruled unanimously that Congress never gave the FCC jurisdiction over the Internet.

The good news is that President Donald Trump understands the gravity of his opportunity. In 2017, he seated 12 appeals court judges, the most ever in the first year of a presidency. So far, he has seated 30 judges, including Justice Gorsuch, with 61 nominees in the pipeline, another 90 vacancies on top of that, and a likely U.S. Supreme Court appointment looming.

By all accounts, the newly robed Trump judges are restoring balance to the federal courts, which alarms Democrats like California U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who explained the stakes last December:

“The Supreme Court hears between 100 and 150 cases each year out of the more than 7,000 it’s asked to review. But in 2015 alone, more than 55,000 cases were filed in federal appeals courts. … In a way, circuit courts serve as the de facto Supreme Court to the vast majority of individuals who bring cases. They are the last word.”

When all is said and done, the last word on the Trump presidency may well be his counterrevolution to restore judicial integrity and the rule of law.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

Having worked for a member of Congress in Washington, D.C., and for state legislators here in Illinois, I can vouch for the fact that most elected officials care about what you think. No, really, they do. Even when they go against what is the clear majority opinion, they at least are aware of the potential consequences of their actions.

While they often do things we’d rather they not do, if a large number of their constituents voice a particular opinion on an issue, office holders ignore it at their own peril and are more likely to take the right action.

Those you elect need to regularly hear from you via letter, email, or phone call. And when obvious pressure is being put on them by interest groups to go against the will of the people, they especially need to hear from you. It doesn’t matter if they’re a lowly state representative or the leader of the free world.

President Donald Trump needs to hear from the pro-family community on three immediate concerns:

1. So-called “transgendered” individuals should not be allowed to serve in the U.S. military.

2. Chai Feldblum, who believes that the LGBT agenda is more important than our God-given and constitutionally protected religious liberty, should not be re-nominated to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

3. Planned Parenthood should be defunded immediately.

Regarding #1, federal courts are attempting to block the president from fulfilling his constitutional duty of being the Commander in Chief of our nation’s armed forces. President Trump is within his power to ignore the court, since the judicial branch has not been granted authority over how the military is to be run. Unfortunately, Trump has chosen to allow the matter to proceed through the courts.

Because of that, openly “transgendered” people (men pretending to be women, or women pretending to be men) are enlisting. President Trump needs to hear from the pro-family community today. The military does not exist for social policy experimentation. And those suffering from gender dysphoria, a recognized mental illness, should not be allowed to serve. (Read more HERE.)

News reports are that President Trump has renominated Chai Feldblum, #2 on our list above, to serve another five-year term as a commissioner on the EEOC. This is not a small mistake by the president, and he needs to hear from you and be encouraged to withdraw the nomination immediately.

The Daily Caller has reported that Feldblum has “regularly advocated for the supremacy of LGBT rights over religious liberty,” and has endorsed polygamy and defended infringing religious liberty to advance the LGBT agenda.

Feldblum’s extremist views have been thoroughly demonstrated over many years, even to the extent of stating that she was “not sure whether marriage is a normatively good institution.” (Read more HERE.)

Regarding #3, when Republicans took the reins of both the U.S. Congress and the White House last year, Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading killer of unborn babies, should have stopped receiving federal dollars to carry on its evil business. Instead, in one of the GOP’s biggest failures so far during the Trump years, approximately $500 million of the hard-earned tax dollars of Americans continues to fund Planned Parenthood’s abortion mills. (Read more HERE.)

One old expression in politics is that in order for some politicians to see the light, they have to feel the heat. Pro-family conservatives need to regularly turn up the temperature on their elected officials, and this includes the person working out of the Oval Office.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email to the Trump administration or call the White House comment line at (202) 456-1111 and politely but firmly express your view that President Donald Trump 1) should not allow “trans”-identifying people to serve in the military, 2) should withdraw the nomination of Chai Feldblum, who is so far out of the mainstream that she should not be serving at the EEOC, and that 3) should lead the charge to defund the organization responsible for the largest number of deaths every year in America: Planned Parenthood. They should not receive another dollar from taxpayers.

IFI Worldview Conference May 5th

We have rescheduled our annual Worldview Conference featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet for Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture.

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

Written by Daniel Horowitz

The way to make infrastructure great again is to make localism great again.

One need not be a flaming states’ rights advocate to understand that something as local in nature as surface transportation can be dealt with more efficiently and effectively on the state and local levels. Which is why, if Donald Trump wants to make America’s infrastructure great again, he should return the gas tax revenue and responsibility of transportation to the states rather than increasing the federal debt and pumping more money into the insane system that indirectly controls every pothole from Washington D.C., distorts proper planning and decision-making, and prevents local communities from debating their priorities.

The interstate highway system was completed over 25 years ago. Yet the political class in both parties believes that K Street lobbyists and federal bureaucrats should run the transportation policy of all 50 states, despite the fact that each state has a unique geography, topography, population density, and cultural differences in travel. The result is a failed cycle of bailouts for the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), thanks to states relying on the inefficient quicksand of federal transportation policy. The question going forward is: Will we double down on raising taxes and/or increasing debt to fund endless bailouts of an inefficient system? Or will we give states full control over their own transportation so they can plan ahead according to their needs and have a debate over taxes and spending priorities where the options can be weighed in the most transparent fashion?

The truth about highway spending

Much as the payroll tax was sold as a pay-as-you go supply for Social Security, the 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal gasoline tax and the 24.4-cent federal diesel excise tax were promised to be used exclusively for highways and bridges. They collectively fund roughly 86 percent of the total HTF, while the remainder of revenue comes from excise and sales taxes on tires, tractors, and heavy trucks. And just as with Social Security, whereby 17 percent of the funds were later diverted to the disability program, roughly 20 percent of the highway funds have been diverted toward mass transit, due to urban pressure groups. Furthermore, according to the Heritage Foundation, Davis-Bacon Act age mandates jack up the cost of construction projects by 22 percent. The cost of our current environmental regulations is incalculable. This has created a dynamic where we spend about $55 billion a year from the highway trust fund while bringing in just $40 billion in revenue, resulting in a $15 billion annual shortfall every year.

The Chamber of Commerce and U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster complain that we have not raised the federal gas tax in 25 years and that it has endangered our roads and bridges. But the reality is that we have not gone without the extra spending because we have bailed out the trust fund from general revenue whenever there was a shortfall. Since 2008, Congress has transferred roughly $143 billion of general revenues to the HTF, $71 billion in 2015 alone when it last reauthorized federal surface transportation programs and the gas tax through 2020. At the time, 24 percent of the bailout funds were funneled toward mass transit!

Thus, the case for returning transportation spending to the states is even more compelling than for education spending.

If we were to turn over the gas tax system to the states, states could set their rates to the same levels as the current combined federal and state gas tax rates. They’d thus be able to cover all of their needs simply by cutting out mass transit and Davis-Bacon regulations. As the Competitive Enterprise Institute observed, we are spending up to 28 percent of the highway funds (combined federal and state) on a method of transportation that accounts for less than two percent of all trips. Accordingly, most of the entire projected shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund is the result of increased spending on mass transit.

If states want to spend more money on mass transit, then they should have a local debate over cutting other spending or raising the gas tax over and beyond the current federal level. But it must be done at a local level. The problem with the current system and the one Trump wants to expand is that is makes the states reliant on the unpredictable and inefficient federal sinkhole. This hampers long-term planning and a sense of prioritization. In their alacrity to gobble up the short-term money before it runs out, state and local governments tend to use the federal funds on small-time and indivisible projects, such as incessant road repaving, instead of better-planned long-term projects. Or they funnel the money to special interests, such as mass transit. Ever wonder why there are buses running through your neighborhood where everyone has two cars? You have no input because there is free money coming from the feds.

What crumbling infrastructure?

The inefficiency of relying on the federal government for highway spending has made it harder to properly plan projects without needlessly creating traffic jams. It prevents states from planning long-term maintenance, which is a much bigger need than new infrastructure. Yet it’s hard to conduct ribbon-cutting ceremonies for an existing road, which is why so much of the federal funding is steered towards projects that are not a priority but that make headlines for politicians. Localism would force a “sink or swim” debate of prioritizing maintenance over new construction. On the other hand, spending more money and raising the gas tax at a federal level, as Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao is calling for, would shield politicians from having this debate. And even if locals ultimate feel that it’s worthwhile to build a new road, they can choose from a range of options, from short-term gas tax increases and fees to cutting other projects. It’s called self-governance.

Once states are empowered with the revenue and responsibility to care for their own local needs, there should not be a need for a massive spending increase in most states above and beyond the current levels. The premise that our entire surface transportation system is crumbling across the board and in need of trillions more from the federal government is a myth and will only exacerbate the existing inefficiencies. We have spent more money on transportation in recent years, and according to the Government Accountability Office, the share of structurally deficient bridges has dropped dramatically over the past decade.

According to Reuters, fewer than 20 of our nation’s 1,200 busiest bridges are structurally deficient. And the way to target their repairs is not by giving states unaccountable handouts but by forcing them to stand before their voters and properly prioritize these needs over other projects to which they inevitably steer funds under an open-ended federal entitlement. Basic maintenance of the highways we already have should be the responsibility of the local governments.

The good and bad of Trump’s transportation proposal

President Trump has the right idea about streamlining the permitting process, cutting regulations, and eliminating judicial meddling from junk lawsuits. He is also right to pursue private investments and lifting caps on tax-exempt municipal bonds so that states can lure private investors into these projects at lower interest rates. He should pursue these policies as a standalone initiative, along with eliminating Davis-Bacon regulations, without a massive new entitlement. The problem is that this will only happen by getting the federal government out of the way, not by making the federal government, the Department of Commerce in particular, the gatekeeper for grant programs to hold over the states. States must be given independence – with the opportunities AND responsibilities to force them to make the right decisions on their own.

Throwing more federal money at states, with federal bureaucrats setting the terms, will exacerbate the fatal flaw of current policy, which is the distortion of sound decision-making and prioritization at a local level. President Trump has identified the correct end goal by trying to leverage public-private partnerships, but the only way to ensure that outcome is by cutting off the federal spigot while simultaneously giving states all of the gas tax revenue. Trump’s blueprint rightfully recognizes that “states and localities are best equipped to understand the infrastructure investments needs of their communities.” But a $100 billion grant program that is a hybrid between Medicaid expansion and Common Core in terms of federal dictates is moving in the opposite direction.

As for other infrastructure, such as waterways and drinking water, according to the CBO, we already spend $416 billion in combined federal, state, and local expenditures. States have already been ramping up spending in recent years and account for three-quarters of the total sum. Why not put all of it on the states and make them completely independent for highway and road maintenance? U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and U.S. Representative Ron DeSantis (R-Florida) have a bill doing just that, while maintaining a small portion of gas tax revenue to be used for the few projects that are national in scope.

A true compromise between the increased spending and the better elements of Trump’s plan would do the following:

• The increase in spending would be the last federal bailout, thereafter putting all highway spending on the states within five years.

• Condition the spending increase on his regulatory reform as a single In other words, no new spending without the reforms attached.

• The new spending should be used for highways, not mass transit.

• Trump should publicly tout some other good reforms in his bill, such as selling off public lands and privatizing some airports and electricity facilities. Don’t just talk about increased spending.

• Scrap the plan for a $50 billon slush fund for rural communities. The federal government already has enough subsidies for rural programs, and if there is a need for new roads, that must be handled on a state level. Instead, states have issues maintaining the roads they already have rather than a need for new ones, particularly in rural areas.

We wouldn’t want garbage collection to be run by the federal government, so why do we continue to depend on a broken Washington for local road and highway issues?

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to President Trump and to your U.S. Representative asking them to abolish the federal gas tax and let the states lead on planning and decision-making regarding road, bridge and highway infrastructure.  Urge them to reject the idea of raising regressive federal gasoline taxes which hit middle class and poor families the hardest.  Ask them to stop feeding an inefficient and bloated federal bureaucracy and instead return control to the states.

This article was originally published at ConservativeReview.com

Written by Carol Swain, PhD

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says its primary mission is to fight hatred, teach tolerance, and seek justice. These are noble goals for most Americans, but this is not a noble organization. It is the exact opposite. Given the SPLC’s power and influence over the media and members of Congress, this once highly-regarded civil rights organization deserves fresh scrutiny. Here are seven reasons why the SPLC fails to serve the public interest:

The SPLC ignores basic standards of scientific research in selecting and classifying hate groups and extremists. 

The SPLC’s definition of “hate” is vague. It defines a hate group as one with “beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” SPLC President Richard Cohen testified in December 2017 that its assessment of hate is based on opinion, not objective criteria. (See minutes 43-48 of his testimony.)

George Yancy, a University of North Texas sociologist, documented the SPLC’s subjective nature in a 2014 study, “Watching the Watchers.” Yancy said the group’s methodology seemed more geared to mobilizing liberals than cataloguing hate groups.

The SPLC uses guilt by association to engage in ad hominem attacks against individuals.

Hannah Scherlacher, a Campus Reform worker, found her name listed in the SPLC’s “Anti-LGBT Roundup of Events and Activities” after the conservative Family Research Council interviewed her. Surprisingly, Scherlacher’s interview had nothing to do with LGBT issues. In 2009, soon after I criticized the SPLC for having mission creep, it labeled me “an apologist for white supremacy.”

I committed the crime of endorsing a film produced by a man the SPLC considers a racist.

The SPLC ignores threats posed by leftist, anti-American groups such as ANTIFA, ISIS, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Despite the growing threat of jihadist violence, the SPLC has been reluctant to add Islamic groups with terrorist ties to its list of extremists. It also ignored how, in 2004, the FBI found plans for a “grand jihad” in America within the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. Yet, the SPLC has applied the hate label to Muslim critics of Islam, such as Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Both are listed in its Field Guide to Muslim Extremists.

The SPLC attacks and smears mainstream public service organizations, including churches, ministries, and various pro-family entities.

Targeted organizations include the American Family Association, Alliance Defending Freedom, Act for America, the Center for Immigration Studies, Center for Security Policy, D. James Kennedy Ministries, Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel and the Traditional Values Coalition*. These groups are lumped together by the SPLC with the Aryan Nations, KKK, and neo-Nazis. Preposterous.

Note: labelling an organization as a hate group hurts its fundraising and hinders access to credit card-processing vendors, search engine rankings, and ministry partners.

The SPLC bashes conservatives while pushing a liberal agenda that empowers and supports leftists, communists, and anarchists.

The SPLC regularly bashes President Donald Trump, blaming him for the growth of white nationalism. Their analysis fails to acknowledge that the rise of white nationalism predates the election of Trump by more than two decades. Much of what the president says or does is framed as an attack on civil rights.

Curiously, after violence in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017, the SPLC republished a map detailing the location of more than 1,500 Confederate monuments and symbols. Consider the map a field guide for anarchists.

The SPLC’s labeling of groups and individuals has inspired acts of violence against its targets.

The SPLC is the common thread in two violent hate crimes against conservatives. After the SPLC listed the Family Research Council (FRC) on its hate map, Floyd Lee Corkins II entered FRC headquarters in August 2012 intending to commit mass murder. He was subdued by a security guard who was shot in the process. Likewise, James T. Hodgkinson, who in 2017 shot U.S. House Majority Whip Representative Steve Scalise (R-La.), was an SPLC social media fan.

The SPLC is an irresponsible public charity.

The SPLC has violated the public trust. Nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations are expected to operate in a nonpartisan manner with the public interest at heart. The SPLC, however, is a radical activist group dedicated to suppressing political dissent.

As of 2016, the SPLC had $319 million in net assets with $69 million parked in offshore accounts. Despite its name, the SPLC does not fight poverty. Its salaries are bloated, and only a fraction of its annual contributions are used to support its programs. Writing for Philanthropy Roundtable, a nonprofit group informing the public on philanthropic activity and groups, executive director Karl Zinsmeister wrote:

The SPLC is a cash-collecting machine. In 2015 it vacuumed up $50 million in contributions and foundation grants, a tidy addition to its $334 million holdings of cash and securities and its headquarters worth $34 million. They’ve never spent more than 31 percent of the money they were bringing in on programs, and sometimes they spent as little as 18 percent. Most nonprofits spend about 75 percent on programs.

A strong case can be made to strip the SPLC of its nonprofit, tax-exempt status.

Congress and the media need to take a fresh look at the SPLC. It no longer serves the public interest.

****

[*Editor’s note: The Illinois Family Institute is also on the SPLC “hate groups” list. Read more here and here.]

Carol Swain is a former associate professor of politics at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and former professor of both political science and law at Vanderbilt University. She holds a master of studies in law from Yale University and a Ph.D from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

This article was originally posted at AmericanThinker.com

Well, it’s not breaking news, but it’s worth noting as President Donald Trump and Congress spar over spending that the national federal debt exceeds $20,000,000,000,000 and is rising by the minute.

We’re using zeroes here instead of spelling out “trillion” to help get across the enormity of this liability that we are piling onto our children and grandchildren.

Equally sobering is a visit to the USDebtclock.org, which tracks our rising debt at dizzying speed.  Introduced on Feb. 20, 1989 by New York real estate magnate Seymour Durst, the U.S. National Debt Clock began by reporting a national debt of “only” $2.7 trillion.

By 1991, it was ticking upward at $13,000 per second. “The amount began accumulating so fast that the last seven digits became totally illegible,” Time magazine reported.

The clock, which was mounted on a building near 42^nd Street in Manhattan, stopped in 1995 during a government shutdown (see, gridlock is good). That was the same year Mr. Durst died.  The clock got going again under his son Douglas, but broke in 1998 when its computers couldn’t handle the total of $5.5 trillion.

With new hardware, the clock continued to tick upward until September 7, 2000, when it actually began going backwards due to the wonderful fact that the national debt began decreasing.   If you’re a Democrat, you’re quick to credit the Clinton administration.  If you’re a Republican, you credit New Gingrich and the GOP Congress for slapping a lid on Clinton’s plans to spend us into oblivion.  Since deficit spending is catnip to Democrats, the second scenario makes the most sense to me.

Anyway, that blessed period ended with the dot-com crash and the economic fallout from 9/11, and the Durst Organization cranked the clock back up in 2002.

By 2008, they had to revamp it yet again, adding a digit, because the Bush Administration had nearly doubled the debt to $10 trillion.  Over the next eight years, the Obama Administration’s annual deficits (with the Republican House’s complicity from 2011 on and the full GOP Congress from 2015 on) managed to double it again.  As of this week, the national debt is cruising beyond $20.6 trillion.

If we keep doubling this thing, it will eat every last penny earned by anyone within a fairly short period.  Ever hear about the grains of wheat on the chessboard, where you double the number on each square? Before you can say “compassionate conservatism,” the thing is out of control and into the zillions.

Except for diehard statists who can imagine no reason to limit the size of government, the good news is that there is a growing consensus that the government, especially in Washington, is too big.  Too complicated. Too powerful.  Too expensive.

The federal goliath has not just stretched its constitutional limits but has busted through them like an Abrams tank through linen.

Frank Zappa, the late rock star with an acerbic wit, once was asked what he thought of the federal government. “I think they’re trying to take over the country,” he said without an ounce of irony.

Like a giant vacuum cleaner on the Potomac River, Washington has sucked up treasure and authority from the rest of the nation and wants more.

President Trump is busily trimming back federal regulations and agency personnel, but it will take a lot to get us back to where we are a semblance of a constitutional republic with a limited government.

Meanwhile, the National Debt Clock keeps humming away near Times Square for anyone who wants to see why the debt for each individual taxpayer exceeds $170,000 and the total debt per family is upwards of $800,000.

The clock is right next to the entrance of an office of the Internal Revenue Service.  “We thought it was a fitting location,” Douglas Durst told Time magazine.

As tax season gets into high gear, it’s worth visiting the clock. It helps us understand why federal elections are slated as far from April 15 as possible.

This article was originally posted at Townhall.com