There are a lot of people proclaiming public schools as harmful – bastions of evil, intent on ruining innocent minds and brainwashing hearts. Some of it can seem like just plain noise, but how much of it is true? What is truly going on in public schools? Is there actually anything going on, or are people just crying wolf? During the Village Church of Barrington’s seminar “Parenting in a Godless Culture: Educating Parents and Grandparents,” church elder David Cartwright answers this question by tracing the history of public schools.

Elder Cartwright goes through some of the curriculum being taught, as well as the LGBTQIA+ push going on behind closed doors. School District 38 Superintendent Bob Gold admits that the environment in schools have become very political in recent years, but warns that not every school is dealing with the problems we see reported on Fox News Channel. He rightly advises that parents and grandparents know what is going on in their own local schools, the teachers and administrators. Above all, he encourages listeners to be very involved in discussions with your children.

Illinois Family Institute is deeply concerned that our children are being dumbed-down and trained in left-wing political ideology on purpose in order to fundamentally transform our nation; to rest our national values, and its Constitutional system of government. According to a 2018 Program for International Student Assessment report, students in 19 other locales scored higher than U.S. students in reading; 22 education systems scored above the U.S. in science; and 29 nations and other jurisdictions outperformed the United States in math. In the state of Illinois, the 2022 proficiency rates in these three core subject areas are unacceptable. See for yourself HERE.

This video is a must see for any parent trying to make a school decision (or curious non-parent’s wanting to remain informed). Please watch and share!

The Public School Option from Village Church of Barrington on Vimeo.

Are today’s journalists and news outlets doing their jobs well? According to  journalists themselves, yes. According to the public, no.

A recent survey from the Pew Research Group highlighted the significant disconnect between those who write the news and the rest of us who read them. One of the most interesting findings of the survey was the relative satisfaction of journalists within their industry versus the relative dissatisfaction of those who consume their work. Sixty-five percent of journalists said they believe that news outlets “report the news accurately,” while a mere 22 percent of the public expressed satisfaction with the accuracy of news reporting.

Pew’s survey also queried journalists about their concerns for the future of press freedom. While 42 percent of journalists age 65 and up said they were “extremely concerned” about the trajectory of press freedom in the industry, a scant 20 percent of journalists age 18-29 registered the same level of concern. In other words, the unabashed censorship, the sloppy reporting, and the revisionist history that plagues our nation’s news outlets hardly concerns the next generation of journalists and reporters.

Despite the apparent disconnect between journalists’ perception of their own industry and the American public’s perception of the same, the survey revealed one interesting point on which the two perspectives were more closely aligned: how much the American public trusts their news outlets. Journalists estimated that 14 percent of the American public “has a great deal of trust in the information they get from news sources.” Similarly, only 29 percent of U.S. adults (non-journalists) said that they trust the information they get from news sources.

It’s apparent there is a crisis in journalism and the news industry, but what is causing it? One possible answer is that the American public has clearly seen through the thin veneer of respectability that once accompanied the news industry. The United States has a rich journalistic tradition: the 1st Amendment has accorded the free press an incredible degree of influence over the politics, culture, and trajectory of American society, and for many decades in our history, the press stewarded that privilege with dignity and wisdom. But the brakes have seemingly come off of journalism—there seems to be no limit to the degeneracy that the U.S.’s thought-leaders will publish and promote.  The average American citizen likely isn’t on board with drag shows for kids, for instance, so when their once-trusted news outlets begin to celebrate the depths of human depravity, they (wisely) look to alternative news sources.

One obvious example of this is the decline of CNN. Once a respected staple of American news reporting, CNN’s ratings are now at a seven-year low. Anderson Cooper, a face long associated with CNN, only averages a paltry 600,000 viewers during the 8:00 p.m. time slot; Tucker Carlson averages an astounding 3 million viewers on Fox News.

Doubtless, another cause of journalism’s crisis in public perception is the changing landscape faced by the industry. No longer are people only consuming news curated by large news outlets (New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Fox News). More and more, people are turning to non-traditional sources for their news. Especially for younger generations, podcasts, online blogs, Substack newsletters, and small independent news outlets have become the primary means of keeping up with current events. And for good reason—smaller news sources are less directly affected by public and government pressure and are often willing to report on unpopular (some would say intolerant or hateful) issues.

The dissemination of news via smaller outlets is a wonderful advantage—especially for Christians. No longer do Christians and conservatives need to rely on dishonest long-time news sources to stay informed about current events. Everyone is able to curate their own newsfeed so they can hear from fair, balanced sources without the fear of being ambushed by the woke nonsense we’ve grown accustomed to from mainstream news outlets.

Of course, this poses a challenge as well. How do we go about evaluating the sources we regularly read and listen to? Fortunately, there’s an easy answer to that question: every Christian has a responsibility to evaluate the information they take in by the unchanging standard of God’s Word. This is, of course, difficult at times, which is why it is of the utmost necessity that each and every one  of us finds a community of believers that shapes our worldview only according to God’s Word.

I guess Fox News hasn’t learned any lessons from CNN’s self-inflicted wounds and rapid descent into ratings hell, the chief interrelated lessons of which are 1. don’t promote lies as truth, and 2. don’t promote evil as good. Fox News just did both and created a firestorm of anger among its faithful viewers. Last week, Fox News (channeling CNN) aired a segment about an ignorant mother and father in California who are raising their now fourteen-year-old daughter as a boy.

Dana Perino introduced the story that was narrated by Brian Llenas.

The story begins with the deceitful claim that Brian Llenas’ story about Ryland Whittington’s “transitioning journey is helping other families.” Chemically stopping natural, health puberty and then inducing puberty natural to children of the opposite sex is not “helping” other families, no matter how deeply Whittington’s parents, Hillary and Jeff, “feel” it is.

Then Llenas goes off the deep end, asserting that Ryland is a “typical Southern California teenager.” While to Midwesterners, California seems to be a place where an inordinate number of people engage in unnatural body modification, the country is not yet at a point where cross-sex bodily mutilation among children is typical.

Llenas in cahoots with Ryland’s publicity-loving parents then tests the gullibility of viewers by claiming that “somehow before Ryland could even speak, he [sic] managed to tell his [sic] parents that he [sic] is a boy.”

According to her parents, while Ryland was still in a non-verbal stage of life, she told them that she is a boy via her resistance to wearing feminine clothes. Credulous viewers are expected to believe that a non-verbal toddler already knows which clothes are feminine and which are masculine.

Children typically start speaking between 12-15 months. They are forming simple sentences by about age 18 months. So, we are expected to believe that sometime before 12-18 months, Ryland knew she was a boy. Further, Ryland’s parents would have us believe, her toddler resistance to wearing feminine clothing styles is proof positive that Ryland’s brain is male while her body is female. We are also expected to believe that Ryland’s certainty during her toddlerhood that she is a boy would have persisted.

Relevant fact: Before the advent of the “Trans” Age, the percentage of young children who suffered from gender dysphoria was exceedingly small and most were boys. Studies have shown that unless children are affirmed socially and chemically in their corporeal masquerade, upwards of 80% will eventually accept their biological sex.

So, the question is, how did Ryland’s parents know the feelings of their five-year-old daughter would never change. Moreover, should a persistent delusion always (or ever) be affirmed? What about children who persist in their identification as amputees (Body Integrity Identity Disorder)? Should they be affirmed, aided, and abetted in their quest for an elective limb amputation?

Llenas admiringly reports, “when Ryland came out at age five. … he [sic] had the full support of his [sic] parents.”

Llenas omitted from his sanguine tale that Ryland was born deaf and had surgery at age one to implant cochlear implants, which have enabled her to hear and speak. It’s interesting that Ryland’s parents would have surgery to restore normal functioning to her ears, while using chemicals (and perhaps at some point surgery) to disrupt the normal functioning of Ryland’s sexual anatomy.

Llenas oddly attributes Hillary Whittington’s support for “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices to her “conservative Christian” faith. Hillary explained:

For me, it’s just a deep spiritual belief that you believe in God. And he … created us the way he wanted us. Well then, yes, he created Ryland just the way he is.

God creates us. He does not create birth defects, disease, confusion, sinful desires, obsessive thoughts, or mental illnesses. We are born into a fallen world and the world’s fallenness affects our minds (thoughts), bodies, hearts (desires), and wills. Did her conservative Christian church not teach her about the fall?

Jeff also cited statistics from the far leftist Trevor Project on “transgender” self-harm as a reason for their support. But Trevor Project statistics have been widely criticized, as have been many studies purporting to prove that not only are “trans”-identifying youth more like to commit suicide, but also that the cause is societal disapproval. Somehow most of our intrepid reporters, in the news media—including Brian Llenas—haven’t been able to find such criticism.

Just this past Monday, the Heritage Foundation, published a study on suicide among young people that upends the narrative leftists use to terrorize parents into collaborating with the “trans”-industrial complex in harming children:

The Heritage study released Monday found that 2020 saw 1.6 more suicides per 100,000 residents ages 12 to 23 in states that allow minors access to puberty blockers and other gender-reassignment procedures without parental consent.

That represents a 14 percent increase in suicides.

A 2011 study found another troubling trend:

Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.

Nor have our intrepid and objective journalists managed to dig up exactly how many and who in our esteemed medical and mental health organizations come up with their “trans”-affirming positions. Let’s just say, it’s a small number of handpicked, biased members who create policy positions that the rest of the members do not vote on. As I have twice written, only about 30 members of the American Academy of Pediatrics—all leftists—created its pro-“transition” position. No minority report, no votes of all members taken.

Within a year of five-year-old Ryland’s “coming out,” her parents made a video and Ryland became an Internet sensation by the time she turned six. Exploiting their own children’s gender dysphoria has become a cottage industry.

Dyson, the princess boy.

There’s the mom, Cheryl Kilodavis, who wrote the book My Princess Boy about her then five-year-old son Dyson who masquerades as a girl. She trotted him out on a talk show in a purple tutu where he, visibly uncomfortable,” twirled at the urging of Meredith Viera. Dyson is now 16 and identifies as homosexual.

Then there’s Desmond is Amazing and Lactatia, two little boys whose mothers introduced them to drag, facilitated the creation of drag personas, and then made bank on parading them around dressed in drag.

And who can forget Jazz Jennings (born Jarod Seth Bloshinsky), the now 21-year-old obese eunuch, who pretends to be a woman and whose parasitic parents have profited from his suffering on the TLC show I Am Jazz.

The foolish, narrowminded sycophant Llenas concludes his rhapsodic segment by thanking Ryland and his family for their “extraordinary courage” in sharing Ryland’s story. Yet another lie. It takes virtually no courage for this family to share their story, which they’ve shared for almost a decade in a viral video, book, legislative hearings, and interviews for the Human Rights Campaign.

Llenas repeats the tired trope that “people are often afraid of what they do not understand,” implying that ontological and moral assumptions that are different from those of the “trans”-cult are born of fear. Has he spent anytime asking counselors, physicians, pastors, and detransitioners who disagree with the “trans”-cult if their beliefs are born of fear?

The controversy this story generated is well-deserved. On the “trans” (and homosexuality) issue, Fox News has segued into advocacy for lies and evil that are harming children, families, religious liberty, and speech rights.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Fox News Channel to let them know how disappointed you are that they are caving into a radical child abuse agenda. Urge them to stop contributing to the “trans” contagion, and ask them to stop lying to us by using incorrect pronouns. This left-wing social agenda is antithetical to science and will alienate both their conservative Judeo-Christian viewers as well as many on the left who oppose what is being done to children.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/FNC-Airs-Story-that-Celebrates-Trans-Cultic-Experimentation-on-Children.mp3

Biden’s border crisis is dangerous enough already, and it may soon get worse.

But his Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandra Mayorkas, paints a rosier picture, “We are preparing for the end of Title 42….We continue to enforce the laws of this country.”

Title 42 from the Trump era stipulates that until potential immigrants are tested and shown to not have the virus, they should remain in Mexico.

Title 42 was scheduled to expire 5/23/22. The Center for Immigration Studies notes, “Title 42 is the only thing standing between the current chaos at the Southwest border, and no border there at all.”

Biden has promised repeatedly to lift this provision, abandoning testing and opening the floodgates for illegal immigrants. But for now, his plan to abolish Title 42 has been blocked by a Trump-appointed judge.

Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) told Maria Bartiromo of Fox News Channel’s Sunday Morning Futures on 5/22/22 that the border crisis is acute. Marshall has visited the border and wants the president to do the same. The senator said:

“Maria, this is a human tragedy here…At nighttime, it looks like a war zone. There’s a sea of humanitarian crises here every evening. And every day, it’s lived out as well.”

The numbers of illegal immigrants swarming in is staggering. Writing in the Washington Examiner (5/19/22), Paul Bedard observed: “Last year’s 1.7 million border encounters is expected to reach 2.1 million, according to Princeton Policy Advisors, an economic analysis outfit that has correctly predicted recent border surges.”

The U.S. Constitution says it exists to “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” Do open borders for any nation help achieve such lofty goals?

On a recent radio segment, I spoke with former Congressman, Allen West, who has seen the border crisis first hand more than ten times. He told me, “Government is supposed to protect people within [our national] borders. That’s their Number 1 duty and responsibility. If we’re not going to follow the rule of law, then what are we supposed to base the Constitutional republic on?”

He added, “America is not just a piece of land in between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and Canada and Mexico. It is a sovereign nation, and it should be regarded and treated as such.” How can a nation remain sovereign if it has no borders?

Some open borders advocates imply that it’s the “Christian thing to do” to just let everyone in—yet surely these same people lock their doors at night.

Rev. Erwin Lutzer, the author of We Will Not Be Silenced, recently told our D. James Kennedy Ministries television audience: “One of the big mistakes that Christians sometimes make is that they want to apply the ethics of the church to the state. I heard a pastor saying–I’m sure that he was compassionate and meant well–when he said, ‘Of course, we should invite people into America and basically have open borders because after all the gospel is for everyone.’ Yes, of course, the gospel is for everyone, but that’s not the role of the state. The role of the state is to keep order, to punish crime, and to keep its citizens safe. That’s the role of the state.”

Lutzer added, “It is important that the church welcomes everyone. That’s the ministry of the church, but that is not the ministry of the state.”

Meanwhile, critics of Biden’s open border crisis note that known terrorists are sneaking into the country—more than 40 on the terrorist watch list slipped into the U.S. last year alone.

Also, human trafficking is taking place, and drugs are pouring in in record numbers. In fact, Chinese-produced fentanyl and other drugs are being smuggled in through the southern border, and the results are making headlines.

Earlier this year, The New York Times reported (2/13/22), “Drug overdoses now kill more than 100,000 Americans a year—more than vehicle crash and gun deaths combined.” The open borders cause this problem, or at least greatly exacerbate it.

Kerby Anderson, the host of the syndicated radio program “Point of View,” recently told our D. James Kennedy Ministries television audience why he thinks the left pushes for open borders: “I think the hope is that these might be future Democratic voters. And so what we’ll do is we’ll just kind of incrementally allow non-citizens to vote.”

Anderson points to the recent move by New York City to allow 800,000 noncitizens to vote as an example.

Senator Marshall, who said our border is like a “war zone” right now, noted that the public safety department of Texas is trying to hold the line: “All of those people are doing their best, but they’re just simply overwhelmed. This is an unsustainable crisis.”

This article was originally published by JerryNewcombe.com.

For those who have watched Fox News over the years, it is no surprise that they announced the hiring of Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner with great fanfare and hype. In the words of CEO Suzanne Scott, “Caitlyn’s story is an inspiration to us all. She is a trailblazer in the LGBTQ+ community and her illustrious career spans a variety of fields that will be a tremendous asset for our audience.”

Perhaps these words could be used as an epitaph on Fox’s legacy? Mark the day carefully.

All the talking points are in order in Scott’s short, effusive statement: Jenner’s transition from Bruce to Caitlyn is “an inspiration to us all.” This famous biological male is “she.” And LGBTQ+ activism is something to celebrate. You go, girl!

Surely this is the death knell for Fox, even if it remains large and influential for decades to come. It has lost its voice and sold its soul. And with what moral authority can Fox call on Jenner to speak against “Lia” Thomas competing against women? Is this Fox’s new message? “Transitioning is fine and sex and gender are whatever you perceive them to be. Just play fair!”

But, to repeat, this should come as no surprise to those who have watched Fox over the years. Although some of the biggest names on the station were Catholic (such as Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity), it was clear that O’Reilly’s views were hardly Bible-based.

The same with Megyn Kelly and others, whose names I mention not to demonize them but simply to say, “They are hardly basing their worldview on the Scriptures.”

As for Hannity, as much as he identifies proudly as a Christian, he had no trouble having Jenner on as a guest last year, not to criticize him but to interview him as a California gubernatorial candidate.

To quote Jenner’s words during the interview, “For me as a trans woman, I think role models are extremely important for young people.”

What? Jenner a role model for young people?

The transitioning of young people is nothing less than child abuse. (More on this in a moment.) And Hannity didn’t object?

Jenner continued, “Trans issues people struggle with, big time. Our suicide rate is nine times higher than the general public. And for me to be a role model for them, to be out there, I am running for governor of the state of California. Who would have ever thunk that? We’ve never even had a woman governor.”

So Jenner, already crowned “Woman of the Year” by Glamour, would be California’s first “woman governor.”

The cat has long been out of the bag when it comes to Fox’s core values.

In fact, without mentioning specific names here, a friend of mine who is a publicity agent told me a few years ago that, while he wanted to land me an interview on one of the biggest shows on Fox, it would be hard for him to get past some of the show’s gay producers.

In short, just because Fox was pro-Trump doesn’t mean Fox was (and is) pro-Bible (as if support for Trump equated with support for the Bible).

And just because Fox is more conservative politically and fiscally than CNN or MSNBC doesn’t mean that Fox is conservative morally or spiritually.

But again, this should not come as a surprise.

So, if you want biblically based views, go to people who base their lives on the Word of God. If you want news that is more conservative on some issues than the left-leaning networks, go to Fox (and some others). But by all means, do not confuse the two, especially at a time when trans activism threatens to undermine the very nature of male and female, not to mention threatens women’s sports and even our fundamental freedoms of speech.

Last week, I was talking with a well-known conservative media figure who told me that, above all, we must undercut the agenda of the left, and that meant working together with gays like Dave Rubin, even though my colleague personally rejected same-sex “marriage.”

In a similar spirit, a friend of mine who is an Orthodox rabbi had Jenner speak at one of his gatherings because Jenner is such a strong ally of Israel.

And what of Trump having Peter Thiel speak for him at the Republican National Convention, despite Thiel being openly and proudly gay?

The truth be told, I recently interviewed a female-to-male trans person to unite our voices in speaking out against the transitioning of children, which we both agree is child abuse.

But in our case, we began the show by making categorical statements about our differences. We laid that out clearly so there could be no doubt or question as to where we each stood. (Watch here when you can. The interview is a real eye-opener.)

This is in stark contrast with Fox’s celebratory embrace of Jenner as an iconic trailblazer in the LGBTQ+ community.

Ironically, despite Fox’s incessant (and often well-placed) criticisms of President Biden and his administration, Fox made its unfortunate announcement on the same day that the Biden administration announced its aggressive support for radical trans activism – beginning with the transitioning of children.

Mark the day.

(For my relevant 5-minute video, “What Does It Mean to Be a Conservative,” click here.)

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Written by Trevor Thomas

On Tuesday of this week, Megan Fox at PJ Media reported on Fox News’ correspondent Bill Melugin’s somewhat foolish account of child rapist James Tubbs. While Melugin gets the heinous nature of Tubbs’ crime and the terrible response to it by the Los Angeles County District Attorney correct, he plays into the lefts’ hands when it comes to their perverse gender ideology. As Mrs. Fox notes,

While reporting on a gruesome story in which child rapist James Tubbs (who calls himself “Hannah”) has been caught on tape bragging about the light sentence he got after sexually assaulting a ten-year-old in a bathroom, Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin went out of his way to call Tubbs “she” and “her” multiple times on America’s Newsroom. It’s not only wrong but confusing to the audience. Why would Fox News join the woke gender bullies who demand that everyone gets their preferred pronouns no matter what our eyes tell us or despite whatever heinous crime they’ve committed?

Mrs. Fox goes on to note that,

Strangely, Melugin did not call Tubbs “she” and “her” on Tucker Carlson’s show, seeming to know the audience wouldn’t appreciate calling the convicted child rapist “she.” So what’s the story? Is Melugin required to use the preferred pronouns of psychopaths, or is it a personal choice?

Sadly, it seems that Melguin’s ignorant use of the English language is indeed an indication of policy on America’s Newsroom. Yesterday, in order to again discuss Tubbs’ case, the day after Melguin’s appearance, America’s Newsroom co-host Bill Hemmer had on Alex Bastian, a special advisor to inept Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon. In the segment, multiple times Hemmer referred to Tubbs using the female pronouns “she” and “her.”

The crisis along the U.S.-Mexican  border continues with little effort from the Biden administration to stop the flood. In September, Del Rio, Texas, was nearly overrun when 30,000 illegal immigrants poured over the border into the town. This action meant illegal immigrants almost outnumbered actual citizens and, as a result, Del Rio’s public areas and living conditions deteriorated noticeably.

In 2021, approximately 1.7 million illegal immigrants have been arrested along our border. However, our federal government has done little to pro-actively intervene or address the primary issues that cause immigrants to leave their country. President Joe Biden met with Mexico’s President André Manuel López Obrador on November 18th. The two only briefly discussed the border. Obrador has stated that the U.S. should grant amnesty to the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and did not promise any help in stemming the tide of illegal crossings.

While the problems incurred along the border are overwhelming, the individuals coming here are far too often the victims. According to Pew Research, we have seen the highest levels of illegal crossings this year compared to the last several decades. However, despite the high level of crossings, the number of individuals crossing is down. This decrease is because an estimated 27% of individuals make multiple crossings across the border. One explanation for multiple crossings is that some illegal immigrants are caught, returned to their country of their origin, and then make other attempts to cross. Another explanation is that coyotes, the colloquial term for smugglers, are going back and forth smuggling victims of human trafficking across the border.

Kevin Lilly, Chairman of the Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission, has closely followed the tragedy of human trafficking at the border. In an interview with Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson, Lilly claimed that 60% of Latin American children crossing the US-Mexican border are victims of trafficking. Approximately 80,000 children are currently being trafficked in the state of Texas alone. The crisis along the border is further facilitating and funding the $200 billion industry of human trafficking.

President Biden’s response to the border crisis and human trafficking has been a complete debacle. The administration’s policy requires U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to release families and unaccompanied minors 72 hours after being detained. Agents then serve them a notice to report to court for a hearing. Most immigrants do not comply with the notice to return, and minors and vulnerable adults are often quickly sold to traffickers.

The lack of intervention by the Biden administration means officials in border states are left on their own to manage the immigrant problem. Governor Greg Abbott (R-Texas) declared disaster areas in 47 Texas counties and deployed the National Guard to assist with border patrol and with the growing humanitarian crisis. Texas will likely see even more problems as a caravan of 2,000 migrants are currently making their way from Central American and Haiti to the US-Mexican border.

Recently, after discovering that the federal government was secretly flying illegal immigrants to Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis (R) stated, “If they’re going to come here, we’ll provide buses. I will send them to Delaware and do that. If he’s [Biden] not going to support the border being secured, then he should be able to have everyone there.” DeSantis has also filed suit against the Biden administration for continuing the catch and release program.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also responded to the problem with the introduction of S. 3002, the Stop the Surge Act of 2021. The Committee on the Judiciary is reviewing the act which was introduced to Congress on October 19th. This bill would establish twelve new ports of entry that Homeland Security would maintain. Any illegal immigrant detained at our border would be sent to one of the twelve ports and processed to determine if they were qualified for entry or deportation. Additionally, the act would eliminate temporary asylum and the catch and release program. As proposed by U.S. Senator Cruz, the bill would help tighten border control and perhaps prevent traffickers from using the open border to victimize vulnerable children and adults.

To stop the inhumane treatment of illegal immigrants and the human trafficking at our borders, we must stop the influx of migrants. This crisis will only end if we tighten border control and make it clear to all individuals that there is an established, legal process for immigrating to our country. The federal government should not automatically grant amnesty if they are serious about stopping the tide of migrants breaching our border. If you believe the border crisis is a humanitarian disaster, do not hesitate to get in touch with your Congressional representatives and demand that the Stop the Surge Act 2021 be moved to the U.S. Senate floor for a vote.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth plus your own U.S. Representatives and voice your concerns regarding the border crisis and express your support for S. 3002, the Stop the Surge Act.

Ask them to secure our national borders! You can also call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to speak to your federal lawmaker by name. If the staff doesn’t pick up, be sure to leave your name, phone number, and your message that you want S. 3002 passed, the border secure, women and children protected and the border wall finished immediately. Please ask your friends to do the same!

More ACTION: If you suspect someone you know is a victim of human trafficking, whether an immigrant or a legal citizen, don’t hesitate to call the National Human Trafficking Resource Center hotline at: (888) 373-7888.

Learn MORE:

[VIDEO] Texas mother, daughter killed as human smuggler crashes into them (Tucker Carlson)

“Transgender” political conditioning has crept deep into the conservative tent. My hope is that conservatives will not only recognize this noxious trend but also push back against any supposedly “conservative” pundits and politicians who are unwittingly advancing this cultural rot.

A couple of weeks ago, “Caitlyn“ Jenner announced his intention to run for governor in California. Various establishment “news” outlets happily reported this development but, of course, intentionally used the wrong pronouns to identify Mr. Jenner in their stories. When Fox News, the supposedly “conservative” news channel of choice, started to use female pronouns in their broadcasts, I could take it no longer, so I found the online webform for feedback and sent the following message:

Please STOP lying to us about Caitlyn Jenner and his run for governor in California.

We know that he is a biological male, so why are you using deceitful language to affirm his gender dysphoria?

I hope you will respect your conservative audience enough to tell the truth and not capitulate to left-wing ideologues who demand politically correct pronoun use.

I CANNOT watch and listen to reports that repeatedly and intentionally lie to us.

Then on Wednesday, May 5th, Sean Hannity aired an exclusive interview with Jenner, who won an Olympic gold medal in the men’s decathlon in 1976, during which Hannity failed his conservative viewers by repeatedly referring to Jenner by female pronouns.

As the FNC segment opens, Hannity asks, “So just how will Caitlyn Jenner restore that California dream? And can she actually beat the state’s very powerful Democratic machine?” Hannity intentionally used the wrong pronoun for Jenner multiple times during this interview.

Ironically, last week when he was asked about transgenders participating in women’s sports, Jenner said “it was unfair,” and that he supports banning the practice. But when Hannity asked him about this commonsense position about biological boys not playing girls’ sports, Jenner started to backpedal and then suddenly switched topics.

Conditioning

The Left is working overtime to condition our thinking and speech. While the correct use of pronouns may seem a trivial  matter that many conservatives are willing to overlook, the fact that change agents are demanding compliance should tell us something. In fact, it should alarm us.

These seemingly small lies are being promoted through covert “narratives” such as Hannity’s interview, as well as overtly as in the case of the Shawnee State University professor, who was punished for using the correct pronoun when addressing a gender-confused student.

Cultural Marxists and their allies are working diligently to condition the American people to accept science-denying absurdities as truths one seemingly insignificant step at a time, just as they do with every other issue. If they desensitize us to accept lies on the small things, then it will be easier for them to get us to tolerate their moderate-to-large false narratives, also known as propaganda. The goal is to grow our already too big, centralized government, which will then wield more power and control over individual lives. Free and critical thinkers threaten this power structure.

It is sad to see Hannity and other “conservatives” capitulate to leftist demands. We must refuse to be conditioned by lies, no matter how small and innocuous they may seem. In fact, the book of wisdom exhorts us to “Buy the truth and do not sell it.” (Proverb 23:23).

Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness

Truth is vitally important, especially to serious Christians. In John 18:37, Jesus tells Pilate, “For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” In the Ten Commandments, God makes it very clear: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16).

What these cultural Marxists are doing is antithetical to what we are taught in Holy Scripture. The author of Psalm 119 states, “Therefore all Your precepts concerning all things I consider to be right; I hate every false way” (Psalm 119:128). And Solomon tells us that “If a ruler pays attention to lies, all his servants become wicked” (Proverbs 29:12-13). Lies are an egregious offense to a Holy God, and liars are destined to spend eternity in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8).

The Christian website Got Questions explains it this way:

False witness, or spreading a false report, is associated with being allied with the wicked (Exodus 23:1), willing to do violence to others (Psalm 27:12), and sowing discord among brothers (Proverbs 6:19). The Bible calls bearing false witness lying (Proverbs 14:5) and compares a man who bears false witness against his neighbor to a violent weapon (Proverbs 25:18). Lies harm people.

When we recall that Jesus clearly identifies Satan as “the father of lies,” we should quickly dust ourselves off and resolve not to put up with being lied to, whether by Sean Hannity, Fox News, or by a political candidate. Instead, we must expose lies and boldly declare the truth at every opportunity.

A trustworthy witness will not lie,
But a false witness declares lies.
~Proverbs 14:5

Take ACTION: Click HERE to access the Fox News Channel webform. Click the box and pick “Sound Off: Share your thoughts/opinions with us!” Ask them to stop lying to us by using incorrect pronouns. Do this at every opportunity you have to push back against the “woke” useful idiots who publicly use incorrect pronouns.

Prayer Request

Please pray for “Caitlyn” Jenner. Near the end of the interview, Jenner admits that he has been dealing with gender dysphoria for decades but then talks about a conversation he had with his pastor and expresses his desire to hear his creator God affirm his life, saying on the verge of tears, “I just hope He says, ‘hey, come on in.'”

We should pray that Jenner is honestly seeking the approval of God. If that is the case, we know that God has promised repeatedly in His Word that those who seek Him with all their heart, will find Him. More important, we know that sinners of every kind can be redeemed by God through the atoning sacrifice (1 John 2:2). A great example of this miraculous transformation is our friend Walt Heyer, who was a keynote speaker at our 2019 Worldview Conference. (You can watch his presentation HERE).

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-1, the Apostle Paul provides a list of those who were sinners but who have been washed, sanctified and then justified “in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” So please pray that Jenner would submit to God’s truth and accept His offer of salvation (John 3:16-21). What a wonderful testimony he would have if he were truly transformed by the Holy Spirit.

To God be the glory!

Learn more:

[VIDEO] Preferred Pronouns or Prison (Abigail Shrier)

[VIDEO] Mr. Rogers on Biology and Kids (The Tonight Show)

Questions for Sex-Eradicationists, Lawmakers, and School Leaders (Laurie Higgins)

Leftists See Orwell’s Novel 1984 As a Blueprint for Progress (Laurie Higgins)

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

We learned this week that the love of money is the root of all evil. Well, we learned that in Scripture. This week purportedly conservative Christian governor of Arkansas Asa Hutchinson just reminded us of it when he sold out children to corporate interests.

For those still basking blithely in the afterglow of America’s once shining light or are socially distancing under a rock, the Arkansas legislature sent a bill to Hutchinson that would 1. prohibit doctors from the risky and experimental use of puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones—some of the effects of which are permanent—for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors, 2. prohibit surgeons from performing mutilating, irreversible cosmetic procedures on minors. and 3. prohibit the use of public funds, including Medicaid, for any of those barbaric, snake oil “treatments.”

The purportedly conservative, purportedly Christian Hutchinson vetoed this commonsense bill to protect children from procedures that are devastating young healthy bodies.

Hutchinson might reflect for a moment on who exactly is cheering his decision. Hint: It’s not conservatives. Oh, no, it’s the “trans”-cult; the “entertainment” industry; the medical industrial complex; the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party (i.e., CNN, NBC, MSNBC, NYTimes, and Washington Post); soulless corporate America; BLM; the ACLU; and the Human Rights Campaign.

Word to Hutchinson: If all the good guys are criticizing you and all the bad guys are cheering you, maybe you made a disastrous decision.

On Tucker Carlson’s Fox News program, Hutchinson defended his decision by appealing to conservative small government commitments—the last refuge of conservative scoundrels who want to embrace “progressive” positions on “social issues.” He also said, the bill “goes too far” because it would stop minors who are already being experimented on from continuing with dangerous “treatments” to conceal their biological sex.

Of course, small or limited government doesn’t mean no government. Nor does it mean abandoning children to the “trans”-cult and the godless profiteers who line their pockets with the lucre gained by chemically sterilizing children and lopping off parts of their sexual anatomy.

Many people, stunned by Hutchinson’s decision and not duped by his small government rationalization, look to corporate pressure as the real reason for Hutchinson’s alignment with the dark side.

In March Hutchinson appeared on another Fox News show and was asked about corporate “pushback” against legislation that promotes sexual sanity. Hutchinson responded,

We’re the home of some major global corporations here in Arkansas, they’re certainly worried about the image of our state.

Immediately after Hutchinson’s veto, left-leaning Tom Walton, whose family owns Walmart, issued this public pat-on-the-back to Hutchinson:

We are alarmed by the string of policy targeting LGBTQ people in Arkansas. This trend is harmful and sends the wrong message to those willing to invest in or visit our state. We support Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s recent veto of discriminatory policy and implore government, business and community leaders to consider the impact of existing and future policy that limits basic freedoms and does not promote inclusiveness in our communities and economy.

Our Founding Fathers would be surprised to learn that our “basic freedoms” include the freedom of children to stop puberty, take cross-sex hormones, and have healthy body parts cut off.

According to the Institute of Southern Studies,

Steuart Walton has been a generous donor to the Arkansas Republican Party as well as to Hutchinson’s campaign.

And Tucker Carlson reported that he “spoke with a source” who said that when the term-limited Hutchinson leaves office in 2022, “he would very much like a board seat” at Walmart.

There are some curious omissions in Hutchinson’s public statements on Fox News about the bill he vetoed.

For example, Hutchinson pointed to the depression and high rates of suicide among gender dysphoric minors. He implied that depression arises from gender dysphoria and can be alleviated by cross-sex hormone-doping. He didn’t seem to know that both depression and gender dysphoria could be symptoms of some other underlying problem. And he didn’t address studies showing that cross-sex hormone-doping can increase suicidal ideation or that suicidal ideation increases after “gender confirmation” butchery.

Hutchinson didn’t address the shocking increase in the number of adolescent girls now identifying as boys. Before the “trans”-cult stopped its slow titration of their ideological poison into the body politic, gender dysphoria affected a minuscule portion of the population and affected mostly boys, beginning between the ages of 3-5. Upwards of 80 percent of those boys eventually desisted from identifying as girls.

Now with the secular world promoting opposite-sex impersonation, particularly via social media, there is an explosion in the number of adolescent girls and young women suddenly identifying as male. As psychologists and sociologists know, girls are much more vulnerable to social contagions, like anorexia, bulimia, cutting, and now cross-sex identification.

Hutchinson didn’t mention the politicization of the professional medical and mental health communities. For example, while “trans”-cultists and their ideological allies like to tout the American Academy of Pediatrics’ endorsement of the medical “transing” of children, they don’t like to mention that the pro-“transing” policy was created and voted on by fewer than 50 members of the now-67,000-member academy.

Hutchinson didn’t mention the increasing number of young women who “detransition” and deeply regret having taken testosterone and/or having had their healthy breasts cut off. These young women with permanently male voices and scarred chests that will never nurse a baby feel betrayed by the medical and mental health communities.

Hutchinson didn’t talk about the health risks from the experimental use of puberty blockers and hormones never tested for long-term cross-sex use, risks that include infertility; liver dysfunction; coronary artery disease; cancer; strokes; osteoporosis; and the development of gallstones, blood clots, hypertension, and pituitary gland tumors.

Hutchinson never talked about the ethics of turning healthy children into lifelong medical patients (You know who likes that? Endocrinologists and pharmaceutical companies, that’s who).

Someone should ask Hutchinson whether his limited government principles would lead him to oppose bans on limb amputations for those with Body Integrity Identity Disorder—a condition in which the sufferer experiences a mismatch between his bodily wholeness and his internal sense of himself as an amputee.

And what about Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), which was banned by the Stop FGM Act of 2020 and signed into law by former President Donald Trump? Would small government Hutchinson oppose a ban on the excision of female genitalia from a 14-year-old girl who, for religious or cultural reasons, wants her genitalia mutilated?

While leftists, practiced at the art of deception and the skill of Newspeak, describe the slicing off of female genitalia as “mutilation,” they describe the slicing off of breasts as “gender affirmation care.”

Since girls as young as 13 are having double mastectomies, a 2015 article by Derrick Diaz and published in the DePaul University Journal of Healthcare Law about cosmetic surgery for minors may offer some helpful insights:

Minors should not have access to cosmetic surgery unless found by a court to be medically necessary. … [I]f medical necessity has not been shown, then the service should be prohibited the same as any regulated service or product prohibited to minors.

…

[A] medical necessity determination can be made through a four-pronged analysis. First, does the impairment hinder a minor’s normal physical function; and, is the proposed surgery intended to treat a present or future clinically verifiable disease, deformity, or injury? Second, is the physical anomaly (1) objectively tangible, and (2) unusual or relatively common? Third, what is the state of the minor applicant’s psychological health? Fourth, would a reasonable minor in the applicant’s position be hindered from normal functioning by the condition (e.g., avoiding normal childhood/adolescent activities)?

…

[R]egardless of whether continued [legislative] noninterference is sound policy generally speaking, it is absolutely not so with regard to minors, as states have statutory mandates to protect their health and welfare. When it comes to cosmetic surgery on minors, states must have an intervening hand in preventing the potentially harmful effects of caveat emptor.

“Trans”-cultists and their allies try to get around this position by arguing that amputating the healthy, natural breasts of gender-dysphoric minor girls is “medically necessary.” But it’s not, and leftists have no conclusive, researched-based proof that it is.

On March 30, just days before his surprising veto, Hutchinson met with two “trans”-cultists—both men who pretend to be women, including “Evelyn” Rios Stafford, a justice of the peace in Arkansas, who pleaded with Hutchinson to veto the bill.

Did Hutchinson talk to any parents of teen daughters who suddenly started identifying as boys?

Did he talk to any young “detransitioned” women who grieve over their damaged bodies and the betrayal of adults who didn’t stop them?

Did he talk to any of the members of the American College of Pediatricians who oppose experimentation on the healthy bodies of children?

Did he consult with Abigail Shrier, the Wall Street Journal writer who wrote the book Irreversible Damage about the harm being done to adolescent girls?

Has he read any of the articles by historically leftist Jennifer Bilek who has been exposing the “money behind the rapidly growing juggernaut of transgenderism in American culture and beyond,” which she argues, “all leads back to the pharmaceutical and tech giants that now interface with LGBT NGOs which are driving the normalization of a biology-denying ideology.”

There is some good news emerging from Arkansas. The Arkansas legislature overrode Hutchinson’s unconscionable veto.

If Hutchinson’s relationship with God and truth are his first priorities—which they should be—then he should publicly confess his sinful decision and repent. Something tells me, however, that confession and repentance aren’t on his agenda.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Gov. Hutchinson via his official webpage. You can also call the governor’s office during normal business hours to give him and his administration feedback: (501) 682-2345

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Asa-Hutchinson-Sells-Out-Gender-Dysphoric-Children.mp3

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!

Prager University (PragerU) was started in 2009 by Dennis Prager as a way to circumvent the left-leaning educational universe and bring conservative ideas to the public in general but especially to young people. This week, PragerU released a deeply disappointing video featuring Guy Benson, political editor for Townhall Magazine and frequent contributor on Fox News Channel.

Guy Benson is immensely gifted. He is a bright, thoughtful, articulate young man with a quick mind and a gracious, winsome manner. He is also telegenic, which makes him a perfect spokesperson in a culture mediated by visual media. But those very gifts and his appeal to young people will enable him to have a corrosive effect on some conservative values.

Book-ending his five-minute PragerU video, Benson says, “I’m a Christian; a patriotic American, and a free market, shrink-the-government conservative who also happens to be gay.”

The phrase “happens to be gay” is an attempt to diminish the significance of his choice to affirm homosexuality as central to his identity. Please note, I did not say Benson chooses to experience same-sex attraction. Rather, he has freely chosen to place his unchosen homoerotic feelings at the center of his identity, and that is not something that just “happens.” Nor is it something trivial.

Benson goes on to say that “Far too often people are sorted by their gender, or their skin color, or their sexual orientation, or any other immutable characteristic that has nothing to do with ideas or values.”

This short sentence contains a number of troubling propositions.

Like “progressives,” Benson suggests that “gender”—and by “gender,” I assume he means biological sex—and skin color are analogous to “sexual orientation.” First, “sexual orientation” is a Leftist rhetorical construction intended to communicate the false idea that heterosexuality and homosexuality are flipsides of the sexuality coin and morally equivalent. In contrast, others argue that homosexuality represents a disordering of the sexual impulse.

Second, homosexuality per se has no points of correspondence to sex or skin color. Biological sex and skin color are genetically determined and carry no behavioral implications, thereby rendering moral disapproval of them irrational.

In contrast, homosexuality is constituted by subjective feelings, whose cause or causes are unknown, and volitional activity for which moral assessment is both rational and legitimate—no matter what the cause or causes for the feelings.

Third, what does Benson mean when he refers to homosexuality as an “immutable characteristic”? Is he referring to the powerful, persistent, and seemingly intractable nature of his desires? If so, in his view is it morally acceptable to act on all powerful, persistent, seemingly intractable feelings? If he doesn’t believe the powerful, persistent nature of feelings confers automatic moral legitimacy on actions impelled by such feelings, how does he determine which ought not be acted on?

And how does he respond to the brilliant Rosaria Butterfield, a former feminist English professor and lesbian who has written eloquently about her spiritual conversion and rejection of a lesbian identity?

Fourth and most intellectually dishonest, Benson makes the remarkable claim that the affirmation of a homosexual identity “has nothing to do with ideas or values.” Does Benson really believe that his (or anyone else’s) homosexual attraction has anything to do with his ideas about and support for the legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriages?

And does he really believe that his homosexual attraction has nothing to do with his hermeneutics (i.e., methods of biblical interpretation)? Benson claims he is a Christian and that his Christian identity sits at the tiptop of his list of personal identifiers. For him to identify as a homosexuality-affirming Christian, Benson must have first embraced a very late 20^th Century revisionist hermeneutic that rejects the plain reading of Scripture and 2,000 years of church history, and which emerged not from newly discovered documents but from the mid-20^th Century sexual revolution.

Arguably the preeminent theologian writing on the Bible and homosexuality, Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, writes this in response to Benson’s PragerU video:

Marriage is the single most significant structure in society. Radically redefining it at its very foundation so as to make gender differentiation irrelevant is a decisively non-conservative political stance, not to mention an unfaithful anti-Christian position that tacitly rejects the God of Abraham and Moses as well as the lordship of Jesus Christ. There can be no negotiation on this point without upending the rug on which the conservative table is set. It takes more courage to hold the line here than on any other position. Conservatives should be known for courage, not cowardice; clarity, not confusion.

In an unsuccessful attempt to prove that his homosexuality does not affect his “ideas or values,” Benson points to the relatively small amount of time he spends addressing “LGBT issues”:

To be candid, in my day-to-day life and work, I spend a lot more time thinking and writing about the failures of Obamacare, for example, than I do about LGBT issues.

But that’s a non-sequitur. It does not follow that because he spends more time thinking and writing about the failures of Obamacare than he does about “LGBT” issues that his homosexual “identity” does not affect his ideas or values. Thinking and writing less on “LGBT” issues than Obamacare means precisely nothing about whether his homosexuality affects his ideas and values on “LGBT” issues.

Benson supports “narrow exemptions for small businesses adjacent to the wedding industry” and he “chafe[s]” at the idea that “all opposition to expanding marriage is framed as ‘hate.’” Since he is a rising star in the GOP, I guess we should be thankful for that.

The talented Guy Benson and others like him pose a threat to conservatism and Christianity. Widespread cultural approval of the homosexuality-affirming ideology threatens the foundation of any society. And if the church affirms heresy, we put at risk the eternal lives of people like Guy Benson.

Since Dennis Prager is committed to the free exchange of ideas, perhaps he’ll invite someone to appear on another video to debate the ideas expressed by Guy Benson, whose embrace of a “gay”  identity suggests that homosexuality—not Christianity—sits at the tiptop of his identity list.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Prager-Universitys-Troubling-Video-with-Homosexual-Christian-Guy-Benson.mp3

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

-and, please-

SAVE THE DATE: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2017

Illinois Family Institute’s
Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet

In an interview posted at the Accuracy in Media website, Lt. Colonel Allen West delivers what conservatives have come to expect from him since his arrival on the national political scene back in 2010 when he was elected to Congress from Florida.

We are thrilled to announce that Lt. Colonel Allen West (Ret.) will be giving the keynote address at IFI’s 2017 Family and Freedom Fall Banquet. As an outspoken advocate for the family and freedom, West is becoming known as one of the great conservative spokespersons of our time, and for good reason.

West firmly believes inspiring hope for this generation and those to come is critical to our nation’s future. He is an author and was a conservative leader in Congress. Currently he contributes to Fox News, works with the London Center for Policy Research, writes for various media outlets and is the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a public policy research organization.

Whether the topic is military readiness (“people sittin’ around at a desk pushin’ pencils don’t protect the nation”), or education (“the money should follow the child”), or the political swamp that is Washington, D.C. (“they chase the news cycle…sooner or later you gotta have an adult in the room that does not chase the news cycle”), Colonel West’s delivery is that of a decorated military veteran impatient with those who are “worried about political gimmicks.”

In the interview, West hit Democrats hard: “[T]he other side says they’re all about pro-choice, but not when it comes to education, not when it comes to tax policy or anything else, only when it comes to killing kids.”

Earlier this year in an op ed titled, “The Grand Delusion of the Progressive Left,” West wrote that one “case of delusion was to try and make the American people believe that Keynesian economic policy, tax and spend, was still viable.”

Obama in his eight years focused more on wealth redistribution, you know, we all do better when we “spread the wealth around.” Furthermore, Obama made the seminal statement which presented a window into the mindset of the progressive left when he stated, “if you own a business, you didn’t build that.” There could be no more disrespectful, delusional, assertion directed towards the hard working American and their indomitable entrepreneurial spirit.

Obama and his disciples of economic disaster failed to grasp the concept that economic growth emanates not from Washington DC, but rather from the policies that unleash American investment, ingenuity, and innovation…along with production and manufacturing.

Days before Donald Trump was inaugurated, West wrote about “The Future of Conservatism in America.” He emphasized the need to get capital investment into economically depressed urban areas. Also needed are policies that will strengthen the traditional two parent home, especially in the black community which has fallen from almost 77%, prior to Johnson’s policies, to now 24%”:

What policies will give parents better educational opportunities, choice, for their children, not relegating them to failing government schools? Interesting, Barack Obama canceled the DC school voucher program, yet dispatched his kids to the prestigious Sidwell Friends School. For progressive socialism, it is about do as we say, not as we do.

What policies will create a safe environment for all Americans reestablishing the rule of law and order in our communities? The travesty that is Chicago must end, and sadly it is a cancer that has metastasized all over our Nation.

Conservatism is the answer, whereby progressive socialism, totally emotional based, has only served to exacerbate these issues and make them worse. And in response to the failures, it becomes a game of seeking blame, not one of self-reflection, you know, it is the fault of Fox News and the Russians.

“I was born and raised in the historic inner city Atlanta neighborhood called the Old Fourth Ward,” West writes, and notes that his parents were registered Democrats, but that they “inculcated in me these foundational conservative values — faith, family, individual responsibility, advancement through education, and service to the Nation.”

“I was not just blessed to have two superb parents,” West writes, “but parents who were American Patriots.”

SAVE THE DATE: Friday, October 27, 2017 at The Stonegate in Hoffman Estates.

Our Private Reception begins at 6:00 PM and costs $150.00 per person; which includes hors d’oeuvres, your picture with Col. West, a signed book and the main banquet.

Dinner begins at 7:00 PM and costs $80.00 per person if purchased before Labor Day.

Reserve your tickets online today or call the IFI office (708) 781-9328 to or click HERE to make your reservations.

Program advertisements & banquet sponsorships available.

Those with ears to hear fear it’s coming. They fear the impending death of FOX News as a voice for conservatism. They see FOX gasping for air in its miasmic studio spaces, but they fear too little life-sustaining air remains. Retaining conservative views on defense and fiscal policy cannot sustain either the health of a political party or the soundness of political punditry.

Although there have long been troubling signs, it was first Bret Baier’s and then Tucker Carlson’s references to objectively, immutably male persons by female pronouns that signaled that perhaps FOX News is too far gone. What some argue is a triviality—that is, grammatically incorrect pronoun use—is in reality momentous. If FOX News show anchors and commentators start using politically correct, grammatically incorrect pronouns it will signal that they have lost either their moral compasses or their countercultural courage or both. And it has been these values that enabled FOX News to thrive in the midst of cultural collapse.

For quite some time, FOX political commentators have either studiously avoided addressing matters related to homosexuality or “trans”-cultism or have addressed them in a pallid, opinion-free way that thinly cloaks itself in the pseudo-nobility of “neutrality.” But using female pronouns to refer to objectively male persons is a leap down from impartiality into the pit of “progressive” partisanship. It signals a cowardly capitulation to the dogmatic rhetorical diktats of sexuality anarchists.

Do Carlson and Baier rationalize their emasculated acquiescence by telling themselves that pronouns are only insignificant parts of speech or that referring to men who pretend to be women by opposite-sex pronouns is a matter of compassion or civility? Or in the privacy of their homes, do they confess to their wives that the motive for their complicity in rhetorical fraud is their all too human but still indefensible desire to keep their well-paying jobs? Is it cravenness, foolishness, or venality that impels their capitulation?

While florists, bakers, photographers, and calligraphers with far less resources risk everything in the service of truth, will Baier and Carlson sell their souls for a mess of pottage? Okay, maybe not their souls, but surely their integrity.

When will conservatives understand what Leftists understand, which is that language matters? Have conservatives not read George Orwell? Orwell warned against what he deemed Newspeak, which is exactly what politically-correct pronouns for biological sex-rejecting persons constitute:

Newspeak was the official language of Oceania, and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of IngSoc, or English Socialism….

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all…a heretical thought…should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever….

[T]he special function of certain Newspeak words… was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them….

[W]ords which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them.

Integrity and wisdom are precious commodities these days, certainly not found often on television—not even on FOX News. The situation is going to get only worse now that Rupert Murdoch’s sons Lachlan and James have taken over the reins. Sure, they’re mopping out the lecherous serial harassers of women, but they’re cleaning house with dirty water. Swish, out goes boorishness. Back-swish, in comes Newspeak.

In a profile of the Murdoch men, the New York Times reported that last fall at FOX broadcast network, “James and Lachlan introduced additional benefits, including…vastly enhanced reproductive coverage for women and ‘expanded coverage for our transgender colleagues.’” Do the Murdoch brothers’ efforts to facilitate their colleagues’ quest to conceal their actual sex end with medical insurance or do their efforts include requiring Newspeak at FOX News?

The New York Times piece explains that “James and his progressive-minded wife, Kathryn, have long been embarrassed by certain elements of Fox News.” Maybe their embarrassment, informed by “progressivism” as it appears it to be, will accelerate the pace of Leftward-leaning changes already taking root at FOX:

“The brothers have even shaken up 21st Century Fox’s profile in Washington, replacing their father’s Republican lobbying chief with a Democratic one. One Hollywood friend equated their mind-set to moving into an outdated house and looking for wood rot.”

I’m all for getting rid of wood rot, but I suspect the Murdoch boys have redefined “rot.” Good things like recognizing the human species as sexually binary and marriage as an intrinsically sexually complementary institution are likely now considered wood rot.

In addition to Baier’s and Carlson’s troubling  use of Newspeak, there are the gaseous exhalations of homosexual FOX host Shepard Smith who never misses an opportunity to make snide remarks about conservative beliefs on homosexuality, thereby poisoning his reporting. While not as overtly and relentlessly in the tank for homoeroticism as Smith, other former and current FOX stars, including Megyn Kelly, Bill O’Reilly, Eric Bolling, Dana Perino, Greg Gutfeld, and Kimberley Guilfoyle, have expressed their support for the legal recognition of homoerotic unions as “marriages.” And those whom the public suspects still hold conservative views on matters related to homosexuality or gender dysphoria, like Sean Hannity, rarely address the issues and almost never offer substantive and hearty defenses of conservative positions as they do on fiscal or defense issues.

All is not yet lost, however. On Monday night, Carlson managed to avoid using female pronouns when talking about his guest “Caitlyn” Jenner. And Carlson did press Jenner—albeit just a little with his pinky finger—asking him, “Do you think it’s possible for people of good will, people of faith, people of generous spirits to be confused at least, or baffled and say ‘I’m not exactly sure I understand this’ and still be good people?”

But Carlson’s question is problematic in that it implies that opposition to “trans”-cultic assumptions is driven by confusion or bafflement rather than truth. And Carlson never confronted “trans”-activist Jenner the way he confronts other guests who hold inane views. For example, why didn’t he ask Jenner, who now has a spanking new birth certificate that identifies his gender at birth as female, if he should relinquish his Olympic decathlon gold medal since he claims he has always been female. Either his birth certificate is fraudulent or his Olympic participation as a male was. Both cannot be true.

Hope springs eternal that FOX will one day soon hire some true conservative commentators who are smart, wise, and courageous enough to offer full-bodied, unashamed, articulate, intelligent defenses of conservative positions on issues related to homosexuality and who will invite guests with more to offer than Jenner–people like Ryan Anderson, Michael L. Brown, Anthony Esolen, Robert George, Jennifer Roback  Morse, and Doug Wilson.  Boy oh boy would I like to see those interviews. They would provide the fresh air FOX needs and its viewers deserve.

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

The Leftist media and Islamic supremacist groups have been doing a victory dance ever since Saturday night, when Fox News issued an apology for statements made on the air by terror expert Steve Emerson and others about Muslim no-go zones in Britain and France. However, the apology doesn’t say what it has widely reported as saying – and there is considerable evidence that Muslim areas in both countries are a growing law enforcement and societal problem.

Fox Report host Julie Banderas stated:

Over the course of this last week we have made some regrettable errors on air regarding the Muslim population in Europe, particularly with regard to England and France. Now, this applies especially to discussions of so-called ‘no-go zones,’ areas where non-Muslims allegedly aren’t allowed in and police supposedly won’t go.

To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country and no credible information to support the assertion there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion.

There are certainly areas of high crime in Europe as there are in the United States and other countries — where police and visitors enter with caution. We deeply regret the errors and apologize to any and all who may have taken offense, including the people of France and England.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s joyous headline read: “Fox News admits ‘no-go zones’ are fantasy.” The far-Left Crooks and Liars blog exulted: “Fox Pundits Finally ‘Apologize’ After A Week Of Being Mocked For ‘No Go Zones’ Claim.” More restrained but still unmistakably gleeful was the New York Times: “Fox News Apologizes for False Claims of Muslim-Only Areas in England and France.” The Leftist media has seized on Fox’s apology to declare that there are aren’t any no-go zones in France or Britain – and by extension that there is no problem with Muslim populations in Europe. NewHounds’s summation was typical: “Fox News has become the laughingstock of Europe this week as first England and then France lampooned its ignorant, Islamophobic reporting.”

The only problem with all the cork popping around Fox’s apology was that there is a problem with Muslim areas in Europe – and the Fox apology didn’t go so far as to say there wasn’t. To be sure, the controversy began with undeniably inaccurate statements from Emerson. He said on Fox on January 11 that “there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.” That is false, and Emerson has acknowledged that and apologized.

However, Emerson was not guilty of fabrication, just of overstatement. Some of the comments on a piece in the UK’s Daily Mail about his gaffe and British Prime Minister David Cameron’s reaction to it (he called Emerson a “complete idiot”) insisted that Emerson was at least partially right: “Just shows cameron doesn’t even know what is happening in this country , as the news presenter is totally correct , its a no go zone .” “There ARE some parts of Birmingham where you darent or shouldn’t go !” “Is he far off the truth? Maybe it’s not true for Birmingham as a whole but there are certain areas where it is true. Certainly it is true of certain other Towns in the UK. Bradford, Leicester, Luton spring to mind.”

Fox’s apology stated that,

“To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country and no credible information to support the assertion there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion.”

That says as much as it says, and no more. It says that neither the British nor the French government has designated any areas to be no-go zones where non-Muslims aren’t allowed in, and that there is no evidence that non-Muslims are not allowed into any areas in either country.

But this carefully worded statement does not actually say that there aren’t areas in Britain or France in which non-Muslims are menaced for not adhering to Islamic law. That is a real and abundantly documented problem. Emerson pointed to it when he said:

“In parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound, seriously, anyone who doesn’t dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire.”

While Emerson’s implication that this was an ongoing phenomenon was false, there were indeed such Sharia enforcers in London between 2011 and 2013. In July 2011, the UK’s Daily Mail reported:

“Islamic extremists have launched a poster campaign across the UK proclaiming areas where Sharia law enforcement zones have been set up. Communities have been bombarded with the posters, which read: ‘You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.’”

In December 2013, members of one of these self-styled “Muslim patrols” were imprisoned; according to the Guardian, in London they

“harassed people, berating them with shouts of ‘this is a Muslim area!’ They forced men to dump their alcoholic drinks, instructed women on the appropriate way to dress, and yelled insults at those they perceived to be gay.”

They didn’t just berate people; as Emerson said, they beat them. In YouTube videos, they threatened to do so, saying: “We are coming to implement Islam upon your own necks.” In June 2013, Muslims attacked an American who was drinking on the street, grabbing the bottle out of his hands and smashing him in the eye with it, causing permanent injury. In August 2013, according to the Daily Mail, “two brothers in law who went on a sponsored walk wearing comedy mankinis had to be picked up by police – after they were pelted with stones and eggs by residents who told them ‘this is a Muslim area’ and demanded they leave.”

A “Muslim area” – maybe even a “no-go zone.” Not in the sense that non-Muslims are barred from entering, but in that, if they do enter, they have to adhere to Sharia restrictions.

The Fox apology is all the more curious in light of the fact that others, even on the Left, have noticed the no-go zones in France before some Fox commentators began talking about them in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. David Ignatius wrote in the New York Times in April 2002:

“Arab gangs regularly vandalize synagogues here, the North African suburbs have become no-go zones at night, and the French continue to shrug their shoulders.”

Newsweek, hardly a conservative organ, reported in November 2005 that

“according to research conducted by the government’s domestic intelligence network, the Renseignements Generaux, French police would not venture without major reinforcements into some 150 ‘no-go zones’ around the country–and that was before the recent wave of riots began on Oct. 27.”

The police wouldn’t venture into these areas without major reinforcements in 2005. Does anyone really think that the situation has improved in the intervening years?

And the day after the Charlie Hebdo massacre set off Fox’s discussions of no-go zones in France, the reliably Leftist New Republic wrote:

“The word banlieue (‘suburb’) now connotes a no-go zone of high-rise slums, drug-fueled crime, failing schools and poor, largely Muslim immigrants and their angry offspring.”

So something the New York Times noted in 2002 and Newsweek in 2005, and that the New Republic reported was still a problem in January 2015, is now something that Fox News has to apologize for discussing?

Clearly there is a problem in these areas. Two of the three Charlie Hebdo murderers were born and raised in France. Where did they get their ideas about killing blasphemers? Not from French schools. They learned them in the Muslim areas where they were born and raised. What’s more, France leads the West in the number of Muslims who have traveled from there to wage jihad for the Islamic State, with well over a thousand Muslims leaving France to join the caliphate. Where did they get their understanding of Islam?

In objecting to Fox’s coverage, the French government objected to claims that these areas were outside their control and subject to Sharia, but it is obvious that whatever control they do have over these areas is not enough to prevent the indoctrination of all too many young Muslims into the jihad ideology.

There needs to be a balanced, honest public discussion of these Muslim areas in Britain and France. The controversy over what has been said on Fox in recent weeks only obscures the need for that discussion. And Fox’s apology, however carefully worded, only plays into the hands of Leftists and Islamic supremacists who have a vested interest in rendering people ignorant and complacent about the reality of what is going on in these areas.

So now would be a good time for Fox to apologize for its apology – and to devote extended attention to the Muslim areas of Britain and France, and shed light on what is really going on in them. That would be to provide a service far greater than the usual surface-scratching of television news.

This article was originally posted at the Front Page Magazine website.

U.S. Republican House Speaker John Boehner (OH), who came under fire from conservatives for resisting the creation of a Benghazi select committee until the scandal got too big to ignore, is under fire from conservatives once again. On Saturday he raised funds for Carl DeMaio, a gay Republican congressional candidate at the center of a scandal to turn the GOP into a gay-friendly political party like the Obama Democrats.

DeMaio, charged with sexual harassment and exhibitionism, is one of the Republican “young guns” getting official Republican money and support. But he has also enjoyed the strong support of Fox News personalities, especially Richard Grenell, a Fox News contributor and homosexual activist who advises his campaign.

The Conservative Review calls DeMaio a “deviant” and wonders whether the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) vetted DeMaio before the Republican Party funneled $1 million into his campaign.

DeMaio probably never anticipated that being labeled “the candidate to watch” in the GOP would turn out this way. His accuser, former staffer Todd Bosnich, said in an exclusive interview with CNN that he came into DeMaio’s office and saw him openly masturbating.

The alleged misconduct went much further than this, however. CNN reported Bosnich said DeMaio “would find him alone and make inappropriate advances, massaging and kissing his neck and groping him.” On another occasion, Bosnich said DeMaio “grabbed my crotch.”

DeMaio, a former member of the San Diego City Council, denies all the charges. But he reportedly had a similar problem when he was accused of masturbating in a San Diego City Hall restroom.

Although House Speaker Boehner is under fire for supporting the controversial candidate, the growing scandal pits two news organizations, Fox and CNN, against each other.

Back in January, Fox News had run a story about DeMaio preparing to “make history” in the congressional race, while Dana Perino, co-host of the channel’s “The Five,” hailed DeMaio for being in a “committed relationship” with another man and the first candidate “to feature his partner in campaign literature.”

“Full disclosure,” said Perino. “I am a former employee of the San Diego City Council, where I worked with Ric Grenell, now again a colleague of mine at Fox News Channel, and who currently consults on the DeMaio campaign.”

Despite this conflict of interest, DeMaio appeared on Fox News with Martha MacCallum and declared, “I don’t think either political party ought to be talking about social issues.”

Yet, his campaign website declares that on social issues:

• Carl DeMaio supports “marriage equality.”
• Carl DeMaio supports medical marijuana…
• Carl DeMaio supports a woman’s right to choose…

Boehner’s fundraising for the controversial candidate comes as prominent San Diego Christians have announced they will cast a “tactical vote” against DeMaio and in support of his Democratic opponent, Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA).

The letter from the Christian leaders, issued before the sex scandal broke wide open, says DeMaio not only supports homosexual “marriage,” but abortion rights. He supports “medical marijuana” and is reported to be open to the idea of legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes.

He also accepts the Obama line on so-called climate change, having declared that “human activity has an impact on the climate,” and that “we must continue to invest in research to determine what is happening, why, and what we can do to mitigate it.”

The Christian leaders declared, “DeMaio is an avowed LGBTQ activist (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning). The LGBTQ movement believes in a genderless society, where God’s order of male and female is denied. Their goal is much greater than that. It is to impose their views upon us, with the intent of abolishing our rights to freedom of religious conscience, coercing us to affirm homosexual practice and to forever alter the historic, natural definition of marriage.”

Despite the sex scandal charges against DeMaio, Boehner and the National Republican Congressional Committee are still in support of this “new generation Republican” candidate.

However, former Arkansas Governor and Republican pro-family leader Mike Huckabee is threatening to leave the GOP over the issue. “If the Republicans want to lose guys like me—and a whole bunch of still God-fearing Bible-believing people—go ahead and just abdicate on this issue, and while you’re at it, go ahead and say abortion doesn’t matter, either,” he said.

CNN’s coverage of the issue has noted the relationship between DeMaio and Fox News contributor Grenell.

After interviewing Bosnich on camera, CNN said it “repeatedly tried to get detailed answers from DeMaio’s campaign,” but that a conference call “was led by hired consultant Richard Grenell, a former Mitt Romney presidential campaign spokesperson and Fox News contributor. Grenell refused to answer questions and accused CNN of being on a partisan witch hunt.”

Grenell is an official of Capitol Media Partners and an open homosexual who appears frequently on Fox News. His areas of expertise include “crisis communications,” and his website declares, “Capitol Media Partners has a proven track record of working with journalists, editors and executives to mitigate developing stories and shape ongoing news coverage. We have extensive contacts and relationships with a variety of national and international reporters across industries and beats.”

But the crisis has been building for DeMaio and Boehner.

CNN noted, “This is not the first time DeMaio has been accused of sexually inappropriate behavior. Last year, a fellow city councilman, Ben Hueso, said he twice caught DeMaio masturbating in a semi-private city hall restroom accessible only to city officials.”

The Wall Street Journal previously reported that then-Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) had given DeMaio $10,000; Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) contributed $5,000; and Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) had kicked in $1,000.

Meanwhile, national pro-family leaders have sent a letter to Boehner and other Republican officials opposing official GOP support for candidates like DeMaio who are openly homosexual or pro-abortion.

The letter, signed by Brian S. Brown, President, National Organization for Marriage; Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council; and Tom Minnery, President, CitizenLink, said, “The undersigned organizations are writing to inform you that we actively oppose the election of Republican House of Representative candidates Carl DeMaio (CA-52) and Richard Tisei (MA-6) and Oregon U.S. Senate candidate Monica Wehby and will mount a concerted effort to urge voters to refuse to cast ballots for them in the November election.”

Richard Tisei is a homosexual Republican running for the U.S. House from Massachusetts, while Monica Wehby is a GOP Senate candidate from Oregon who has endorsed homosexual marriage.

The letter said:

This decision was reached only after having exhausted all attempts to convince the Republican leadership of the grave error it was making in advancing candidates who do not hold core Republican beliefs and, in fact, are working to actively alienate the Republican base. We believe that Republican candidates should embrace the full spectrum of conservative principles—economic, national security and social issues—that have defined our party since President Reagan led us to a transformative victory. While we acknowledge that a national party must accommodate varying points of view on matters of prudence, we also believe a party must stand for certain core principles that it expects its candidates to defend.

Referring to the National Republican Congressional Committee supporting candidates like DeMaio, Tony Perkins has said it appears that “some of the GOP want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory” this November.

Sounding optimistic, candidates DeMaio and Tisei have formed a joint fundraising committee called the Equality Leadership Fund, and plan to “build a foundation for other gay Republicans to use in their campaigns for office.”

But that depends on Republicans voting for and electing these candidates.

Pro-family advocate Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth says Republican “big shots” have failed to take into account  the number of social conservatives who will “walk away from the GOP or simply not vote,” as result of the party nominating candidates like DeMaio.

This article was originally posted at the Accuracy in Media website.

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.