Written by Walter E. Williams

Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, seeking to represent New York’s 14th Congressional District, has called for the abolition of the Electoral College. Her argument came on the heels of the Senate’s confirming Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. She was lamenting the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, nominated by George W. Bush, and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, nominated by Donald Trump, were court appointments made by presidents who lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College vote.

Hillary Clinton has long been a critic of the Electoral College. Just recently, she wrote in The Atlantic, “You won’t be surprised to hear that I passionately believe it’s time to abolish the Electoral College.”

Subjecting presidential elections to the popular vote sounds eminently fair to Americans who have been miseducated by public schools and universities. Worse yet, the call to eliminate the Electoral College reflects an underlying contempt for our Constitution and its protections for personal liberty. Regarding miseducation, the founder of the Russian Communist Party, Vladimir Lenin, said, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” His immediate successor, Josef Stalin, added, “Education is a weapon whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”

A large part of Americans’ miseducation is the often heard claim that we are a democracy. The word “democracy” appears nowhere in the two most fundamental documents of our nation — the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. In fact, our Constitution — in Article 4, Section 4 — guarantees “to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” The Founding Fathers had utter contempt for democracy. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, said that in a pure democracy, “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.”

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Virginia Gov. Edmund Randolph said that “in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” John Adams wrote: “Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide.” At the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton said: “We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty” is found not in “the extremes of democracy but in moderate governments. … If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy.”

For those too dense to understand these arguments, ask yourselves: Does the Pledge of Allegiance say “to the democracy for which it stands” or “to the republic for which it stands”? Did Julia Ward Howe make a mistake in titling her Civil War song “Battle Hymn of the Republic”? Should she have titled it “Battle Hymn of the Democracy”?

The Founders saw our nation as being composed of sovereign states that voluntarily sought to join a union under the condition that each state admitted would be coequal with every other state. The Electoral College method of choosing the president and vice president guarantees that each state, whether large or small in area or population, has some voice in selecting the nation’s leaders. Were we to choose the president and vice president under a popular vote, the outcome of presidential races would always be decided by a few highly populated states. They would be states such as California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania, which contain 134.3 million people, or 41 percent of our population. Presidential candidates could safely ignore the interests of the citizens of Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Delaware. Why? They have only 5.58 million Americans, or 1.7 percent of the U.S. population. We would no longer be a government “of the people”; instead, our government would be put in power by and accountable to the leaders and citizens of a few highly populated states.

Political satirist H.L. Mencken said, “The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.”

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

This article was originally published at  the Creators Syndicate webpage.

Never in our lifetimes has America been so divided, and we are in danger of tearing ourselves at the seams. What’s more, it looks like things will only get worse — much worse — in the days ahead.

An article on the Study Finds website states that, “It may not be so hard to believe during this murky political landscape, but a new study finds the divide between Democrats and Republicans is the worst it’s ever been, more so than many people may even think.

“The research, conducted by Zachary Neal, an associate professor of psychology and global urban studies at Michigan State University, is among the first to measure polarization not only by examining the frequency of parties working together, but also by demonstrating how they’ve grown more distant than any other time in modern history.”

With the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, followed by the midterm elections, that polarization will only increase in the days ahead. That, in turn, will lead to the stiffening of each opposition position, as the left attacks the right and the right attacks the left, confirming each side’s worst suspicions about the other: “You are even worse than I thought you were!”

The pro-life movement will be freshly energized with another conservative jurist on the Supreme Court and with a pro-life president at the helm. The pro-abortion movement will be freshly energized as well — not to mention utterly outraged — launching an all-out assault on conservatives and pro-lifers. And this is just one aspect of today’s massive cultural and political divide.

Politically Polarized

According to Prof. Neal, “What I’ve found is that polarization has been steadily getting worse since the early 1970s. Today, we’ve hit the ceiling on polarization.”

The early 1970s reflected the turbulence of the counterculture revolution, a time of massive division between the young and the old in America.

The older generation was shouting, “America, love it or leave it!” The younger generation responded by raising two fingers for the peace sign, saying, “Make love, not war!”

Since then, those divisions have worked themselves out along sociological lines more than generational lines. And over the decades, the lines have been drawn more clearly.

More recently, President Obama had a chance to be a unifying leader as our nation’s first black president. Unfortunately, he often chose the way of identity politics, thereby enflaming a spirit of division in our midst.

President Trump, by appealing to the dissatisfied state of many Americans, has rallied tens of millions. But in so doing, he has poured salt in our festering wounds, deepening rather than bridging those divides.

As for Congress, it is totally split along party lines. This is the least likely group in America to bring unity, at least for the moment.

As for the media, there’s hardly anything even close to the middle. Left has gone farther left and right has gone farther right.

As for the Church, we seem as divided as the rest of the society and hardly more civil.

Who, then, can bring healing to our nation’s wounds? Who can be peacemakers rather than troublemakers?

Christians, Let’s Lead the Way

I’ve argued in the past that followers of Jesus are uniquely equipped to lead the way, given our emphasis on the message of redemption (see here and here).

But let’s be real. Most Bible-based followers of Jesus hold to strongly conservative moral and social views.

By and large, we are strongly pro-life. We are strongly pro-family (starting with marriage as God intended it, namely one man and one woman). We oppose LGBT activism. And we are not about to change, since these beliefs are sacred to us.

How, then, can we bring healing when we are part of the division?

I, for one, don’t plan to compromise a single one of my convictions, nor am I expecting LGBT activists or pro-abortionists to simply abandon their cause.

And I do not believe that the solution for our country is for everyone to meet in the middle, where we’ll live happily ever after.

But what I am saying is this. Very few people thrive on hostility and anger. Most of us would prefer to get along with our co-workers and neighbors and family members. So, why don’t we take the initiative to be peacemakers and bridge builders and reach out to our ideological opponents?

You could start a conversation by saying, “Look, we’re poles apart politically and culturally, but we don’t have to fight and be nasty. Would you mind telling me a little bit about yourself? About your family? I’d like to get to you know as a fellow human being and not just as a supporter of Hillary Clinton (or Donald Trump) or an opponent of Brett Kavanaugh.

“Maybe we could be friendly co-workers (or neighbors) despite our differences. After all, just because we have such strong differences doesn’t mean we have to hate each other. And if I can help you in any way, I’m here.”

Let’s Build Bridges

Not everyone will accept our offer. Some will hate us simply because we hold passionately to our views. Others will reject us all the more. The better they get to know us, the more they will despise us.

But bridges can be built, like the bridge built between myself and the gay rabbi who performed my mother’s funeral.

There was also a bridge built between leaders in my home congregation and the gay man (and his partner) who led a protest against us.

What we have to remember is that behind the position there is a person, and we might have much more in common with the person than with their position. Along with that, the heart of the gospel is the message of reconciliation. That includes both the reconciliation of people to God along with the reconciliation of people to people.

So, while we pray for a massive national awakening and while we ask God to have mercy on our land, let’s build some bridges along the way. When the fissures are this deep, every little bit helps.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.com

Leftists, controlled by “LGBTQ” activists and in thrall to their dogma, have redefined yet another term: bullying. They seek to impose their redefinition on all of society in their relentless quest to socially condition everyone into affirmation of their sexuality ideology. There’s no better evidence that they have redefined “bullying” than their claim that Melania Trump’s campaign against cyberbullying is hypocritical because her husband allegedly cyberbullies.

The often-foolish Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank recently made that claim in a column in which he argued that President Donald Trump cyberbullied former CIA director John Brennan by calling him a “political hack.” Milbank also accused Trump of cyberbullying special counsel Robert Mueller, former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman, John Dean, U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Charles Schumer (D-NY), Governors Andrew Cuomo, (D-NY) and John Kasich (R-OH). Milbank’s evidence that Trump cyberbullied these people? He called them names on Twitter.

Milbank’s argument raises the question “What is a bully?”

My Random House Dictionary defines a bully as “a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.”

My American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “a person who is habitually cruel, esp. to smaller or weaker people.”

My Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “a tyrannical coward who makes himself a terror to the weak.”

My Oxford American Dictionary defines it as “a person who uses strength or power to coerce others by fear.”

Is calling famous adults in positions of cultural power names “cruel”? Are John Brennan, Robert Mueller, Chuck Schumer weak? Are they terrified by Trump’s tweets? Does tweeting mean things about famous adults in positions of cultural power constitute the use of coercive strength and power?

Apparently, the spanking new Leftist definition of “bully” omits all references to smaller or weaker people, which means that untold numbers of people—including countless “progressive” pundits, politicians, professors, teachers, and actors—are guilty of bullying.

If all epithets constitute bullying, then was former Obama press secretary, Jay Carney a bully when he called Milbank a “hack.”

When Milbank called U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) a coward and said the president is “surrounded by hooligans,” was Milbank bullying?

When perpetual power-seeker Hillary Clinton called Trump supporters “deplorables,” was she bullying?

When Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn called opponents of the legal recognition of homosexual unions as marriages sophomoric Bible-thumpers, hankie-twisters, and poisonous debaters, was he bullying?

When the editor and publisher of the “progressive” magazine The Nation, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, said former president George Bush was incompetent, untrustworthy, and dishonest, was she bullying?

When former President Barack Obama called Kanye West a “jackass,” was he bullying? When Obama called a segment of the population bitter Bible-clingers was he bullying?

Are “progressives” bullies when they call theologically orthodox Christians ignorant, hate-filled bigots for their belief that homosexual acts are immoral?

Was Jesus a bully when he called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers?”

If someone is a hack, a jackass, or a viper, is it bullying to say so?

If we use the true definition of bullying, it becomes clear who the bullies are. Bullies are those who possess cultural power—and by cultural power, I mean our dominant cultural institutions—and wield it against those with little or no cultural power.

It is “progressives” who control government schools, academia, the arts, professional medical and mental health organizations, mainstream media, social media, and corporate America. When Trump tweeted that John Brennan is a “political hack,” he was not guilty of bullying. When Carney called Milbank a hack, he was not bullying. When cultural power-brokers call an elderly florist a bigot, they’re bullying.

For tactical reasons, “progressives” have decided that when it comes to adults talking about adults, bullying no longer refers to coercive, threatening, cruel treatment of weaker people. They do that all the time. Now it refers to any speech by conservatives that’s not pleasant, sufficiently obsequious, or ideologically aligned with their views. But remember, no one has an obligation to acquiesce to Leftist language rules.

This is not an endorsement of speech that is uncivil or intemperate, but not all unpleasant speech is uncivil or intemperate. There is even a cultural place for expressions of hatred. Decent people with properly formed consciences will hate wicked acts and will say so even in the face of coercive bullying by the culturally powerful.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Leftists-Redefine-Bullying.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

Based on the response from the left, you would think that the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court would virtually guarantee the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Why, then, are some conservative and pro-life groups opposing his confirmation?

On the positive side, many pro-life leaders reacted enthusiastically to the nomination of Justice Kavanaugh, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the highly-respected Susan B. Anthony List.

She said, “President Trump has made another outstanding choice in nominating Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, keeping his promise to nominate only originalist judges to the Court.”

In her opinion, Kavanaugh was “an experienced, principled jurist,” who has a “strong record of protecting life and constitutional rights.”

Many others were enthusiastic as well, including conservative think tanks and long-term pro-life leaders.

On the negative side, Jane Coaston wrote an article for Vox.com explaining, “Why social conservatives are disappointed that Trump picked Brett Kavanaugh.”

She pointed to a number of top leaders in the conservative and pro-life movement who had reservations about Kavanaugh or who called for outright opposition.

Upon hearing of President Trump’s nomination of Kavanaugh, the National Review’s David French wrote, “I’ll defend [Kavanaugh] vigorously from unfair critiques tomorrow, but tonight I join many conservatives in a slight sigh of regret. There was a better choice.”

Tim Wildmon, President of the highly influential American Family Association, wrote, “AFA has opposed the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S Supreme Court for some very valid reasons. We are deeply concerned about how he might ultimately rule on issues related to abortion and religious liberty. For these reasons, we consider this nomination to represent a four-star appointment when it could have been five-star.”

Other groups, like Columbia [South Carolina] Christians for Life sent out e-blasts with titles like, “ROE VS. WADE protector Kavanaugh: Another red flag for Jesuit-educated, Jesuit school director, BRETT KAVANAUGH.” (This was sent out August 30.)

Another pro-life activist sent out links to this video, with this warning: “President Trump broke his campaign promise to pro-lifers when he nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Ricardo Davis of Georgia Right to Life calls Kavanaugh’s pro-abortion position ‘morally reprehensible’ and urges pro-lifers and conservatives to demand Kavanaugh’s withdrawal and for Trump to replace him with a real pro-life nominee such as Amy Coney Barrett.”

How can we make sense of this?

On the one hand, there is agreement that someone like Justice Amy Coney Barrett, if appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, would definitely vote to overturn Roe v. Wade should the opportunity present itself. The downside is that many believe that in today’s climate, despite the Republican majority, she would not have been confirmed.

Others have suggested that it’s unlikely that there will be a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade as much as an incremental challenge. What if something like the Fetal Heartbeat Bill became law and was challenged up to the U.S. Supreme Court? How would Kavanaugh vote on that?

The real answer is that we simply do not know what a U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh would do.

According to Thomas Jipping, Deputy Director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and a Senior Legal Fellow, Kavanaugh’s “record meets the Schumer standard of a judge who does not predictably rule for a particular side. That is because Kavanaugh is the kind of judge who follows the law rather than his personal views.”

What, then, are we to make of the varied and passionate responses to Justice Kavanaugh? Does the left have reason to fear? Does the right have reason to rue a missed opportunity?

Here are a few things that seem clear.

First, we can be almost certain that Justice Kavanaugh will be a far better friend of the U.S. Constitution and of conservative values than any judge a President Hillary Clinton would have appointed. That is a very big positive.

Second, we who are pro-life do well not to put our ultimate trust in a man (Kavanaugh) or an institution (the U.S. Supreme Court) to change the direction of our nation. (This is not to deny the importance of both the man and the institution. It is simply to bring perspective.)

Third, it is possible that Kavanaugh himself cannot guarantee how he will rule if confirmed. There have been surprises in every direction from various appointees in the past, and even the best vetting process cannot guarantee the future.

Obviously, I hope that the leftist opposition to Kavanaugh is correct and that, should the opportunity arise, he would vote for life and for family and for our essential liberties.

But there may be a reason for the concern of some on the right, in which case we should be praying for Kavanaugh and the rest of the members of the Court that God would direct their hearts.

Scripture teaches that, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will.” Surely He can turn the hearts of U.S. Supreme Court justices as well.

More importantly, He can turn the hearts of a nation. That is the greater goal when it comes to cultivating a culture of life, and it must always remain the foremost goal for all of us who love life. As powerful as the Supreme Court has become, it alone cannot transform hearts.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

“Creative destruction” is a common phrase used in economics. One simple example that’s in the news a lot lately, is the phenomenon of Amazon.com. Since it launched in 1994, countless small books stores have been put out of business, and at least one large chain, Borders, has closed. That’s the destruction part. The creative part is the locating of new distribution centers all over the country — Illinois has been trying to land one as this article gets posted. The benefit to consumers is that within minutes, customers can find the book (or whatever) they want online and have it shipped in days.

When the American textile industry was decimated a few decades ago, the jobs were sent overseas due to free trade policies. Clothing prices dropped, but not without many Americans losing good paying jobs.

One common argument from the pro “free” traders is that trade, unrestricted by tariffs, raises the standard of living. For example, the middle, lower middle class, and the poor can afford things they wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford. I have no doubt that’s true. For example, the last time I was in a Walmart I was shocked at just how inexpensive those foreign-made massive flat screen TVs are these days.

Of course, it’s not just clothes and TVs that are less expensive with free trade, but computers, furniture, clothes, and food (though evidently not meat).

Maybe there is someone out there who supports fairer trade who wants Americans to be priced out of necessities of life basics. If there is, I haven’t met them.

But is it just me or is the storage unit business a growing industry? Maybe I didn’t notice many of the Public Storage, Self Storage, and U-Haul Storage facilities when I was younger. I have noticed many new ones being opened, however.

It’s reasonable to surmise that what fills up many of that storage space is furniture and other items that could be afforded because of “free” trade. It’s also not unfair, it seems to me, to wonder about the impact on the average standard of living by having so much affordable stuff that a person winds up paying monthly storage fees.

That said, my assumption over the years has been that “free” trade is to be preferred. Only in recent years have I begun to read articles from serious men and women who are not pro-big government or economic isolationists making the case for a fairer trade.

While “creative destruction” leads to innovation, my concern is that the creative part doesn’t keep up with the destruction part. Factories close, towns die, and a lot of men and women who earned a good living working in manufacturing cannot find work that will allow them to maintain a decent standard of living.

It has been widely noted that Hillary Clinton lost states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan in no smart part due to their concentration on identity politics and their ignoring the economic challenges of the working class.

Former Trump advisor Steve Bannon refers to a lot of what has been taking place concerning working class jobs as “economic hate crimes.” Bannon calls Washington, D.C. a “business model,” in that those on the inside always prosper. The think tank culture is also, no doubt, a “business model,” as big donors that benefit from “free” trade write big checks to defend current policies. There aren’t a lot of big donors in those dying towns across America.

Recently, townhall’s Kurt  Schlichter was tough on the “free” traders in an article:

Conservativism forgot about the real world conservatives we expected to line up behind us. While we were talking about free trade, we were ignoring that GOP voter who fought in Fallujah, came home, got a job building air conditioners, raised a family, and then one day watched the video of the oh-so-sorry CEO. . . sadly informing his beloved employees that their jobs were getting shipped to Oaxaca. And our response to the 58-year old Republican voter who asked us how he was going to keep paying for his mortgage and his kid in college? Pretty much, “Well, that’s how free enterprise works. Read some Milton Freidman and go learn coding.”

That’s not a response, not for a political party that requires people to actually vote for it. That’s an abdication…

Last year, Victor Davis Hanson also weighed in on the topic during an interview with Laura Ingraham: (see here starting at about the 8-minute mark).

I saw a whole generation of people in agriculture completely wiped out by unfair trade with the European Union. And Every time I would write about it I was told that I didn’t understand free market economics. And the same thing with China, and the same thing with outsourcing.

I grew up in a small town where everybody had a good job at a manufacturing plant. Now it’s 16 percent unemployment and I’m supposed to say this is creative destruction.

And I read in [National Review], that I’m affiliated — that this is good. That people lose jobs. They have to move. You just abandon your family your house, everybody, your community, and you just get in the car and follow the job.

And then I think to myself, I get up every morning at the Hoover Institution — I don’t worry that somebody from the Punjab is gonna walk in my office and say I’ll write that column for 40 percent of what you’re doing.

. . .

I know people in Silicon Valley that are being outsourced right now by people coming in on Visas. The elite has never suffered the consequences of their own ideology.

It’s not just conservative commentators who are not experts in economics. Economist Stephen Moore, no Trumpian protectionist, recently wrote about how NAFTA needs to be improved, and cites unfair practices of our trading partners.

Another expert is John Westberg who we mentioned in part two. His solution is innovative and deserving of attention and study — you can read more about it here ADD LINK.

As I noted at the outset of this 4-part series, this is a huge topic worthy of an ongoing debate. The need for a healthy middle class is obvious — and impossible without enough good paying jobs. Just looking at the employment/unemployment numbers isn’t enough. We must look at the actual human impact on the ground — that is how we will measure how well trade is working for working Americans.

This isn’t a matter of feelings and emotions but of dollars and cents. American policy should be aimed at benefiting Americans, even if we wind up paying more for goods, and less on storage units.

Up next: ‘Trillions of dollars are at stake’: It is a battle over ‘the future wealth of the United States.’

Download the IFI App!

We now have an IFI mobile app that enables us to deliver great content based on the “Tracks” you choose, including timely legislative alerts, cultural commentaries, upcoming event notifications, links to our podcasts, video reports, and even daily Bible verses to encourage you. This great app is available for Android and iPhones.

Key Features:

• It’s FREE!
• Specific content for serious Christians
• Performs a spiritual assessment
• Sends you daily Scriptures to encourage and equip you
• You determine when and how much content you get

The shooting of GOP House Whip Steve Scalise and several other Republicans during an early morning baseball practice this month is as unsurprising as it was dreadful. Some of our deepest expectations were realized in that moment, as the furious rhetoric being churned out by the Left finally expressed itself in the ultimate form of contempt: an attempt to assassinate political leaders.

It wasn’t hard to predict where our national discourse was taking us. For years in the halls of Congress and in the courts, we’ve been engaged in a civil war. There’s been a marked increase in the use of the term “civil war” by those who spend their days opining on culture. It’s all been there but the shooting, and now we can check that box.

Until that happened, we all hoped that what was left of the original American spirit—the rule of law, respect for human dignity, a sense of honor, and love of country—would hold back the baser instincts of human nature. But we could all feel the rope fraying.

Even a cursory look at the last few years reveals a surprising amount of unfiltered and increasingly hostile rhetoric coming from politicians, entertainers, professors, scientists, philosophers, and other public figures.

It started with words

• Words from Barack Obama: “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them” and “I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”

• Words from Donald Trump: “Anybody who hits me, we’re gonna hit them ten times harder” and “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”

• Words from Hillary Clinton: “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it.… Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America” and “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

• Words from DNC Chairman Tom Perez: “[Trump] doesn’t give a s— about health care;” U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY): “Has [Trump] kept his promises? No. F— no;” U.S. Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA): “[Trump is a] disgusting, poor excuse of a man;” and former Clinton running mate Tim Kaine (D-VA): “What we’ve got to do is fight in Congress, fight in the courts, fight in the streets, fight online, fight at the ballot box.”

• Words from Fresno State University lecturer Lars Maischak: “Justice = the execution of two Republicans for each deported immigrant;” “To save American democracy, Trump must hang. The sooner and the higher, the better”; and “#TheResistance Has anyone started soliciting money and design drafts for a monument honoring the Trump assassin, yet?”

• Words from Trinity College (CT) professor Johnny Eric Williams: “I’m fed the f— up with self-identified ‘white’s’ daily violence directed at immigrants, Muslims, and sexual and racially oppressed people. The time is now to confront these inhuman a–holes and end this now.”

• Words from Art Institute of Washington professor John Griffin: “[Republicans] should be lined up and shot. That’s not hyperbole; blood is on their hands.”

• Words from former Rutgers adjunct professor Kevin Allred: “Will the Second Amendment be as cool when I buy a gun and start shooting at random white people or no?”

• Words from former CNN personality Reza Aslan: “This piece of s— is not just an embarrassment to America and a stain on the presidency. He’s an embarrassment to humankind.”

• Words from pop diva Madonna: “Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I’m outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House;” actress Lea DeLaria: “[O]r pick up a baseball bat and take out every f—ing republican and independent I see. #f—trump, #f—theGOP, #f—straightwhiteamerica, “f—yourprivilege;” comedienne Sarah Silverstein: “Once the military is w us fascists get overthrown;” and actor Johnny Depp: “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?”

While the words broke an unspoken decorum, they weren’t much without action. Mobs gathered and marched with signs that read, “Become ungovernable” and “This is war” and “The only good fascist is a dead one.” Violent protests shut down presentations deemed hate speech on college campuses: Dr. Charles Murray at Middlebury College, Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California, Berkeley.

From there it was only a few steps to acting out murder fantasies in the form of “art”: comedienne Kathy Griffin decapitating Donald Trump; rapper Snoop Dogg shooting Donald Trump in a “music” video; and a Shakespeare play featuring the murder of “Julius” Trump.

And finally, someone put these sentiments into action, unleashing a hailstorm of bullets on unsuspecting Republican congressmen practicing for a charitable baseball game.

As much as I regret making the distinction, the animus is almost wholly on the Left of the political spectrum. It is the Left that has become hostile to historical, traditional American values. It is the Left that has mocked Christianity and rejected our Judeo-Christian heritage. It is the Left that has labeled the rest of America homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, and misogynistic. It is the Left that accuses white people of having privilege that needs to be checked. It is the Left that has championed the principles of “tolerance,” “diversity,” and “inclusion” as the new American values. It is the Left that has embraced democratic socialism. It is the Left that has twisted American history and alters textbooks, traditions, and monuments.

John Adams once warned in a letter to the Massachusetts Militia:

Should the People of America, once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World. Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

In other words, our society was organized on the assumption that our “moral and religious people” would govern themselves under the auspices of godly conduct and that if they didn’t, our country would become a hellhole. Does anyone doubt the truth of his statement?

He wasn’t the first to recognize that laws can’t keep people from wickedness. “When people do not accept divine guidance, they run wild,” wrote the wise man, “but whoever obeys the law is joyful” (Proverbs 29:18).

James T. Hodgkinson didn’t pull the trigger in a vacuum. He did what many of our fellow citizens seem to be calling for. Now that the barrier has been broken, is it only a matter of time before others unbridled by morality and religion step through the breach?”

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

-and, please-

Here is David French writing at National Review:

Identity politics works like this: Progressives do everything in their power to explicitly and unequivocally stoke race- and gender-related resentments and grievances. Any push-back against identity politics is labeled denialism at best and racism or sexism at worst. Progressive ideas are so self-evidently superior that opposition is best explained as grounded in misogyny or the always-reliable “fear of change.”

“It’s a poisonous ideology,” French writes, and “it’s straining our national unity”:

In the aftermath of the election, the Democrats are doing their own soul-searching, with many of the questions boiling down to a battle between ideas and identities. Did they lose because they nominated a bad candidate who advanced insufficiently attractive ideas? Or did they lose because, in this election cycle at least, there were just too many racists and sexists?

It’s understandable and human that Hillary would point the finger rather than look in the mirror, but if her side wins the argument, look for Democrats to do their dead-level best now and in the future to inflame race- and gender-based grievances. They will tell millions of Americans that the color of their skin and their “gender identity” should dictate their thoughts and beliefs, and that opposition isn’t based on reason or logic but rather hate and fear.

Here’s the thing, though — that destructive narrative is so powerful that, next time, it might just win. If it does, Democrats will feel vindicated, triumphant liberal culture warriors will redouble their assault on conservative ideas and institutions, and the national fabric will continue to fray.

To our paraphilia of the day: Voyeurism. Here is Wikipedia:

Voyeurism is the sexual interest in or practice of spying on people engaged in intimate behaviors, such as undressing, sexual activity, or other actions usually considered to be of a private nature.

The voyeur does not normally interact directly with the subject of his/her interest, who is often unaware of being observed. The essence of voyeurism is the observing but may also involve the making of a secret photograph or video of the subject during an intimate activity.

Let me ask our readers to search their hearts for any bigotry that might be in there concerning voyeurs. It’s who they are.

And our closing question: Will the letter V be added to the LGBTQIA (etc.) abbreviation?

Up next: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Tribalism & Urolagnia

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT Is Not a Color & Fetishism

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: ‘Public Discourse’ Weighs In & Bisexuality

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: More from ‘Public Discourse’ & Autassassinophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: An Ugly Fight & Bestiality/Zoophilia

Please Support Neighborhood Pro-Family IFI

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider making a donation to help us stand strong!

Election 2016 will go down in history as a great surprise — a quasi-triumph for Conservatives, for Evangelicals, and a tragedy for the Progressive Left. Millions of Americans were praying, they knew the nation was heading at breakneck speed toward godless socialism, with every possible perversion being lauded by The Left.

Life and marriage, natural marriage, were still vitally important to Bible-believing Christians in America. As was our relationship, nationally, to the Jewish state of Israel. Though Donald J. Trump was an unlikely champion for such conservative issues, he was the only choice. Everyone nervously hoped Trump would keep his promises. But most understood that Hillary Clinton would keep hers: she was ardently pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and LGBT “special rights,” for a two-state solution with Palestine and Israel, for open borders and so many other disastrous policies.

The future of America weighed in the balance and on November 8, 2016, conservatives, Christians, nationwide breathed easier, a seed of hope and prayers answered energizing that long-maligned segment of the country.

In 2010, United in Purpose (UiP), a nonprofit, was “started with a question: Is it possible to transform American culture by bringing together conservative Christian organizations to act in unity to reach their shared goals?” They assembled a team with the sole mission “to unite and equip like-minded conservative organizations to increase their reach, impact, and influence for the purpose of bringing cultural transformation in America based on Judeo-Christian principles.”

The election of 2016 further steeled the determination of UiP. The American Culture and Faith Institute (ACFI) is one division of UiP, under the leadership of Executive Director, George Barna, of famed Barna Group, the research organization “regularly conducts national surveys to gauge the sentiment and activity of politically conservative, spiritual active Christians in America.”

On April 12 of this year, ACFI published an article, “Mixed Views on Morals.” The article summarizes “a FullView™ online survey was conducted March 22-29, 2017, with 1,000 respondents age 18 or older whose demographic profile reflects that of the United States.”

The article begins:

Americans are not too pleased with where things stand in their country these days. A nationwide survey of adults by the American Culture & Faith Institute (ACFI) reveals that a key reason for peoples’ dissatisfaction relates to their perceptions of the morals and values of the nation’s adults.

The survey found that only four out of ten adults (40%) feel satisfied with the way things are going in the United States these days.

Of note, some of the keen dissatisfaction appears among liberals:

Less than four out of ten adults (37%) believe the country is headed in the right direction. Once again, conservatives (56%) were far more likely than liberals (20%) to express that belief.

The population segments most likely to feel more disadvantaged these days were Baby Boomers (45%) and liberals (42%).

Interesting, now that President Donald J. Trump is steadily reversing former President Obama’s executive orders, most of which forced immoral and ungodly practices on Americans, The Left is unhappy.

But there were other valid concerns respondents shared:

• Only one-quarter of adults (24%) are satisfied with the moral condition of the nation. Such concerns were especially deep among adults with a biblical worldview (just 7% of them were satisfied with America’s moral condition). People 50 or older were less satisfied (21%) than were those under 50 (27%).

• One-third of adults (34%) are satisfied with the values and moral views taught in the public schools. Dissatisfaction ran especially high among those with a biblical worldview; among SAGE Cons (i.e., Spiritually Active, Governance Engaged Conservative Christians); and among conservatives.

• Just one out of three adults (34%) is satisfied with the honesty and integrity of the mainstream media. The segment that most clearly separated itself from the rest of the population is liberals: 52% are satisfied with the character of the media.

• Not quite four out of ten people (38%) are satisfied with the degree of compassion that Americans have for one another.

• Four out of every ten respondents (40%) feel satisfied with the values embraced by most adults. The one out of ten adults who have a biblical worldview emerged as the segment least satisfied with peoples’ values (18%).

• Not quite half of the nation (44%) is satisfied with the fairness experienced from the court system. Conservatives and liberals had a common concern in this regard. The only segment for which a majority felt the courts are judging fairly was people 70 or older.

It’s quite heartening to see that those who espouse a biblical worldview are discerning, responding with biblical precepts in mind.

In direct opposition to the conservatives, the survey demonstrated “liberals are twice as likely as are conservatives to feel satisfied with the values and views taught in the public schools. They are also twice as likely to feel satisfied with the moral condition of the country.”

For decades and decades Progressives have owned education. The Schools of Education at U.S. universities are academic petri dishes of socialist thought, inculcating a Leftist, godless worldview in all but the hardiest of conservative, Christian students.

Election 2016 may have been a turning point. Post-inauguration, every day the news brings signs of hope. President Trump is working to defund Planned Parenthood and rolling back many of the liberal and/or immoral executive orders mandated by Obama and his pen. Israel is once again completely confident in our friendship. Our borders are being enforced and unlawful illegals being deported. We have a strong presence at the United Nations and are not capitulating to the evils of that organization.

With entities such as American Culture and Faith Institute and United in Purpose, conservatives are wising up, using information and sound battle tactics to defeat The Left and their godless agenda.

Perhaps God will have mercy on America as her citizens hunger and thirst after righteousness, remembering that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The “Slouching Toward Gomorrah” has been stayed. Burgeoning hope compels more and more conservative people of faith to make their voices heard, to be salt and light in our culture.

Let’s pray it’s not too late for that salt and light to right America’s course, remembering:

Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.

Over five years ago, in 2012, Barack Obama was running for a second term. The U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, had been attacked by Islamic terrorists. United States Ambassador Chris Stevens, IMO Sean Smith, and CIA Contractors and former Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were all killed in the attack. Yet, the White House and State Department, under the lead of Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, lied repeatedly about the nature and cause of the attack.

Americans were discouraged and mourning the loss of life. Conservatives were discouraged, wondering if our sound, life-giving principles would ever again rule the day and undergird the policies of our nation’s capital.

In that backdrop I wrote an article, “The Great MSM End-Run” in an attempt to awaken conservatives, Christians, to the tools we had available for messaging and coalescing. It was quite evident years and years ago that the Progressive hordes had effectively taken over media, broadcasting, Hollywood, and academia. How could we possibly win elections, let alone hearts and minds if there were no means of dissemination at our disposal?

But the truth was and is, we do have the means and the tools if we are wise enough and disciplined enough to use them. As I wrote just prior to Election 2012:

Why then so much palpable discouragement when real polls that are scientific show it’s a neck and neck race? Why do so many solid conservatives judge the election to be already lost? Because those downcast Americans are not engaging. Consider the Right has the team, we have knowledgeable coaches, we have an ace quarterback and a receiver with great hands and unstoppable wheels. But we’re only playing prevent defense and there’s no one cheering in the stands. Sometimes momentum is everything.

We learned this the hard way in 2008 as Obama excited the young voters, utilized new media, and won the election. This time around, 4 years later, that same youth vote is not as energized, and many voting blocks are polling with lower percentages favoring Obama. The Right needs a new play, an end run…an Elisha moment. The story of this Old Testament battle comes to mind: the king of Israel was surrounded by the enemy and paralyzed by fear. Elisha spoke in 2 Kings chapter 6:

16 “Don’t be afraid,” the prophet answered. “Those who are with us are more than those who are with them.”

17 And Elisha prayed, “Open his eyes, Lord, so that he may see.” Then the Lord opened the servant’s eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

That’s where new SOCIAL media, especially Twitter, which is instantaneous and real-time, comes into play. We may all have credible, powerful information, but without unity and action despondency overcomes good intentions. However, if on a daily basis, conservatives are connecting with thousands of other right-minded folks, hope is renewed and the MSM thwarted in their game plan of overwhelming discouragement.

At about the same time, urged by friends across the nation, I wrote two Twitter tutorials that went viral. I encouraged Conservatives:

Contrary to popular opinion, twitter is not a mere megaphone for narcissists: it can be a cyber bully pulpit for enduring ideas and urgent announcements.

. . .

Twitter at first blush is a mere amusing past-time, and may even seem like a “time drain”. Oh it can be fun–absolutely!

But Twitter can also be a powerful media application, which used to good effect, can span the world with life altering news. I say we use it as though our values and Republic depend on it…and so they do.

Keep in mind, in 2008 when I first began using Twitter and social media to connect with my conservative, Christian friends across the nation, almost no one understood what in the world Twitter was or how to use it. News and other TV shows did not have Twitter accounts and did not ask people to “tweet” during their shows.

Now that has changed and we understand the dire stakes: our nation is floundering in sea of lies and immorality and desperately needs our message of hope and life.

That’s where the Illinois Family Institute comes into play. As written at the IFI website:

The Illinois Family Institute (IFI) is an independent 501c(3) non-profit ministry dedicated to upholding and re-affirming marriage, family, life and liberty in Illinois.

. . .

IFI works within the state of Illinois to promote and defend biblical truths to foster an environment where families can thrive and reach their full God-given potential to serve and glorify Him–making the most of the opportunities afforded to each of us by His gift of life and liberty.

Illinois Family Institute works hard to disseminate those biblical truths via any and all possible communication mediums.

You can connect with IFI, read articles, share articles, plan to attend IFI events, and get involved in being salt and light.

If you’re reading this, you already know about the Illinois Family Institute website. But there’s more — much more!

Follow and tweet with IFI on Twitter , watch and share their videos on Youtube, interact via the Illinois Family App for Android or iPhone , listen to the weekly Illinois Family Institute podcast, and sign up for Text Alerts — an SOS for critical information and alerts.

Wise King Solomon wrote in Proverbs 29: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

The Apostle Peter wrote 2,000 years ago:

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.

Those inspired words are as true today as they were all those millennia ago. Illinois Family Institute is doing their level best to be salt and light, to share God’s vision, and to help all of you equip yourselves with the answers for the hope that is in you.

Join us in this great venture, using the latest iteration of the Gutenberg press — digital and social media — to shine the light, to touch hearts and minds.

The Illinois Family Institute is completely dependent on voluntary contributions of individuals just like you.  Without you, we would be unable to fulfill our mission.  Please consider a donation to support our efforts!

To make a credit card donation over the phone, call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.

*Caution: Content May Not Be Suitable for Younger Readers*

A blaring, front-page headline in the Chicago Tribune about the women’s march for death and deviant sexuality marred the Sunday morning of many Illinoisans—once again justifying the subterranean position the mainstream press occupies in the view of many Americans.

The Trib reported that an estimated 500,000 mostly women “staged an enormous, raucous rally…to send a potent message of defiance to…President Trump.”

I wonder how the Trib reported the 2013 March for Life in Washington that drew an estimated 650,000. And does anyone believe the coverage would have been less feverish and sycophantic if the numbers for the death and deviance march had been 400,000 or 200,000?

The statements made by protesters yesterday affirming a non-existent moral right of women to have their offspring killed is more abhorrent than any of the abhorrent things Trump has said.

Extolling the legal right to have incipient human life exterminated in the womb is incalculably abhorrent. What we can calculate, however, is how many human lives have been killed in wombs in the U.S. since 1973: 59, 738, 680.

The Trib cited the “show of star power absent from inauguration festivities,” so let’s take a glimpse at what inaugural attendees missed.

Plasticized sexagenarian sex symbol Madonna offered this inspirational stem-winder:

Welcome to the revolution of love, to the rebellion, to our refusal as women to accept this new age of tyranny where not just women are endangered but all marginalized people….It took us this darkness to wake us the f*** up….And to our detractors that insist that this March will never add up to anything, f*** you. F*** you….Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I am outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot of blowing up the White House, but I know that this won’t change anything….I choose love.  

Let’s not forget these patriotic words from women’s role model Madonna at a public event just a month before the election:

If you vote for Hillary Clinton, I will give you a b***job. OK? I’m really good. I’m not a douche, and I’m not a tool. I take my time, I have a lot of eye contact, and I do swallow.

Pregnant Natalie Portman made this extraordinarily ironic statement:

We need to take inspiration from nature, and remember that we hold the mystery of life, and the seed of every possibility within our bodies….We need to demand freedom from fear over our bodies and control over our own bodies…. [F]rom the bottom of both hearts beating inside my miraculous female body, I want to thank our new president. You just started the revolution.

Cognizant of the beating heart of another human within her womb—the mystery of life, the miraculous body of another whose seed too contains within it possibility—Portman seeks to protect women’s legal right to kill it.

Then the always melodramatic Ashley Judd recited the words of 19-year-old Nina Donovan. Here’s just a taste of her distasteful spoken words:

I am a nasty woman. I’m as nasty as a man who looks like he bathes in Cheetos dust. A man whose words are a distract to America. Electoral college-sanctioned, hate-speech contaminating this national anthem….Blacks are still in shackles and graves, just for being black. Slavery has been reinterpreted as the prison system in front of people who see melanin as animal skin….I didn’t know devils could be resurrected but I feel Hitler in these streets. A mustache traded for a toupee. Nazis renamed the Cabinet Electoral Conversion Therapy, the new gas chambers shaming the gay out of America….I am not as nasty as homophobia, sexual assault, transphobia, white supremacy, misogyny, ignorance, white privilege….Yeah, I’m a nasty woman—a loud, vulgar, proud woman.

…

And our p***ies ain’t for grabbing. Our p***ies are for our pleasure. They are for birthing new generations of filthy, vulgar, nasty, proud, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, you name it, for new generations of nasty women. So if you a nasty woman, or you love one who is, let me hear you say, hell yeah.

Someone needs to tell Ashley Judd that Bill Clinton did a whole lot worse than grabbing “p***ies,” and Hillary defended him while victimizing his victims.

Indulge me in a paraphrase of “nasty woman” Donovan’s words spoken by “nasty woman” Judd:

I’m a grieving woman. I’m grieving that “nasty women” speak in words that distract, delude, and degrade America and destroy American lives. Mainstream press-sanctioned, deplorable-speech and lies contaminating our national anthem….Blacks still in shackles and graves because their fathers abandoned them. Slavery has been reinterpreted as the welfare system by people who see melanin as victimskin….I didn’t know devils could be resurrected but I feel Hitler in our baby abattoirs. The final solution traded for “choice.” Mengele renamed “sex re-assigners,” castrating men out of manhood. I grieve for the victims of gender-obliterators, homofascists, and race-baiters whose lies deny that true identity is found in Christ alone—not in sexual deception or melanin.

I grieve for women who think empowerment is found in the illusions of Hollywood and delusions of actors. I grieve for women who learn about womanhood from “nasty women” like Madonna who made a living by objectifying herself. I grieve for women who are not birthing the life that grew within them and would have called them “mother.”

So, if you are one of these women or love one of these women—whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, you name it, know that there are thousands of other women and men who grieve and pray for you.

Amen.

Read more recent articles from Laurie:

New Trier High School Avoids Diversity Like the Plague

Highlights Magazine for Children Affirms Homoeroticism

Cub Scouts Reject Girl Who Wishes She Were a Boy

Join IFI at our Feb. 18th Worldview Conference

We are excited about our third annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned theologian Dr. Frank Turek on Sat., Feb. 18, 2017 in Barrington. Dr. Turek is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”

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

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

When William “Bill” Henry Gates III was born to William Henry Gates II and Mary Maxwell Gates, in Seattle in 1955, little did they know he would grow up to be (reportedly) the world’s wealthiest man.

Bill III and Paul Allen co-founded Microsoft on April 4, 1975, and grew the fledgling company into an $85 billion multi-national computer software business. Bill transitioned from CEO to CSA (Chief Software Architect) in 2000, the year he and wife, Melinda, established the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Then in 2006 Bill backed off, becoming part-time at Microsoft and full-time at BMGF.

Three trustees shepard BMGF, commonly called The Gates Foundation: Bill Gates III, Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffett. Buffett (Chairman/President/CEO of $65B Berkshire Hathaway Inc.) is ranked as one of the world’s wealthiest men (net worth of about $66 billion) and has vowed to disburse 99% of his fortune to charities and causes mostly via the Gates Foundation. One Buffett pet cause being the Democratic party; he endorsed Hillary Clinton in her run for president.

The Gates Foundation, by all appearances is a humanitarian endeavor, seeking to help the least of these throughout the world, and especially in Africa. As written on the opening page of the BMGF website:

WE BELIEVE

That by giving people the tools to lead healthy, productive lives, we can help them lift themselves out of poverty.

Every year, millions of people find ways to transition out of poverty—by adopting new farming technologies, investing in new business opportunities, or finding new jobs. We know women and girls have a unique power to reshape societies. When you invest in a woman’s health and empowerment, it has a ripple effect, helping families, communities, and countries achieve long-lasting benefits.

A “woman’s health and empowerment” — now that’s an interesting phrase. Just what might that mean?

Click on the link under A CLOSER LOOK Help women make informed family-planning decisions and more of the BMGF agenda is revealed:

The Challenge

Voluntary family planning is one of the great public health advances of the past century. Enabling women to make informed decisions about whether and when to have children reduces unintended pregnancies as well as maternal and newborn deaths. It also increases educational and economic opportunities for women and leads to healthier families and communities. Family planning is a smart, sensible, and vital component of global health and development.

However, more than 220 million women in developing countries who don’t want to get pregnant lack access to contraceptives and voluntary family planning information and services. Less than 20 percent of women in Sub-Saharan Africa and barely one-third of women in South Asia use modern contraceptives. In 2012, an estimated 80 million women in developing countries had an unintended pregnancy; of those women, at least one in four resorted to an unsafe abortion.

Significant challenges stand in the way of making contraceptives more widely available and accessible, including insufficient donor and developing country funding, lack of appropriate products that meet users’ needs, weak distribution systems, lack of reliable monitoring and data collection mechanisms, and cultural and knowledge barriers.

Farther down The Foundation Strategy is defined:

Our Strategy

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Family Planning program is working to bring access to high-quality contraceptive information, services, and supplies to an additional 120 million women and girls in the poorest countries by 2020 without coercion or discrimination, with the longer-term goal of universal access to voluntary family planning.

With our partners, we support national governments that have committed to the goals of FP2020 and are leading the development and implementation of their own country-specific plans.

Foundation support includes assessing family planning needs, particularly among the poorest and most vulnerable populations; identifying access barriers and funding gaps; developing and testing interventions; sharing evidence-based practices; promoting accountability through real-time performance monitoring and data collection; and fostering coordination among governments, partners, and donors.

The verbiage repeatedly refers to “contraceptive information” and “contraceptives and voluntary family planning” and then, tucked away, “at least one in four resorted to an unsafe abortion.”

So, a whole lot of talk about women and contraception information and worries about unsafe abortions. What is starkly missing from the page is any mention of “life” or “babies.”

Also of note, The Gates Foundation operates with entities aligned with FP2020: Family Planning 2020. What is the goal of that initiative?

FP2020 is an outcome of the 2012 London Summit on Family Planning where more than 20 governments made commitments to address the policy, financing, delivery and socio-cultural barriers to women accessing contraceptive information, services and supplies and donors pledged an additional US$2.6 billion in funding. Since then, the number of countries with FP2020 commitments has grown to 36 and, in 2014 alone, donors provided US $1.4 billion in bilateral funding for family planning—32 percent more than in 2012.

Led by an 18-member Reference Group, operated daily by a Secretariat, and hosted by the United Nations Foundation, FP2020 is based on the principle that all women, no matter where they live should have access to lifesaving contraceptives.

One of the FP2020 guiding principles:

• Universal access to voluntary contraceptive information, services and supplies, within the context of integrated programs to achieve sexual and reproductive health and rights and the health-related MDGs.

The website, like its partner the Gates Foundation, is full of mentions of contraceptive information and “sexual and reproductive health and rights.” And even more telling, the list of “Core Partners“:

• The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
• The Department for International Development (DFID)
• UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund
• USAID (The United States Agency for International Development)

Much has been made of The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s investment in African charities, but a closer inspection yields something less of a true philanthropic effort to save lives, and more of an effort to advance family planning and abortion. And this pro-abortion, utilitarian worldview was cultivated in Bill Gates III from a young age.

In a 2003 interview, Bill Moyers questioned Gates about his interest in advancing “family planning”:

MOYER: But did you come to reproductive issues as an intellectual, philosophical pursuit? Or was there something that happened? Did you come upon… was there a revelation?

GATES: When I was growing up, my parents were always involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that. And so it’s fascinating. At the dinner table my parents are very good at sharing the things that they were doing. And almost treating us like adults, talking about that.

My mom was on the United Way group that decides how to allocate the money and looks at all the different charities and makes the very hard decisions about where that pool of funds is going to go. So I always knew there was something about really educating people and giving them choices in terms of family size.

Indeed, Bill Gates II, a prominent Seattle lawyer, also served on the board of Planned Parenthood. His wife, Mary, Bill III’s mother, was the first female president of King County’s United Way. The United Way shunts a portion of all donations, unless earmarked otherwise, to Planned Parenthood.

Gates Sr. is Co-Chair of the Board of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

All of these connections explain Bill Gates’ implicit pro-abortion biases, they all add up. And The Foundation doesn’t dicker, it contributes major bucks to abortion providers. Live Action News’ Josh Craddock wrote in June 2014:

Fr. Boquet notes that, “The Gates Foundation has in the past and will continue to give tens of millions of dollars to the largest abortion providers in the world, including International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International. These large sums of money will undoubtedly expand the reach and influence of the abortion industry.”

According to the Gates Foundation grant database, the Foundation gave Planned Parenthood of America, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and Planned Parenthood of Western Washington about $71 million from before 2009 through 2013. Additionally, the Gates Foundation gave $46.1 million to Marie Stopes International in 2012 alone.

A year later, Micaiah Bilger writes for Life News:

The Gates Foundation promised to give an additional $120 million to Family Planning 2020 programs that support “the rights of women and girls to decide when and how many children they want to have,” the news website All Africa reported today.

. . .

Both Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International, two of the largest abortion businesses in the world, are partners in the global Family Planning 2020 initiative, according to a press release from the initiative.

Now factor in BMGF Trustee Warren Buffett, Hillary Clinton’s BFF. Remember that Planned Parenthood awarded Hillary the Margaret Sanger Award in 2009 and the Democratic Presidential candidate has pledged to have “Planned Parenthood’s back if elected president.” In fact, not only is Mrs. Clinton pals with Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, she was also good friends with Cecile’s mother, Ann Richards.

The mafia had a term to describe who they were, “cosa nostra,” translated that means “our thing.” And “our thing” to Bill and Melinda Gates, Bill Gates Sr., Mary Gates, Warren Buffett, Hillary Clinton, Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood, United Way, Marie Stopes International, and FP2020 is a desire to advance an abortion agenda around the globe.

And at its heart, abortion countermands the culture of life admonished in Deuteronomy:

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.

Yes indeed. Mainstream Media adores The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and touts their Progressive “Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA),” but that’s just one small endeavor and not the heart of what the Microsoft billionaire really does with his fortune.

The word Philanthropy comes from the Greek: philos loving + anthrōpos man. Alas, Philanthropy, Gates-style, has absolutely nothing to do with real love of human life.

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

P.S. Listen to recent IFA podcast episodes at : illinoisfamilyaction.org/podcast

When Loretta Lynch succeeded Eric Holder as U.S. attorney general a year ago, some harbored the tiniest hope that she wouldn’t be quite as radical.

After all, Mr. Holder had done his best to gin up racial resentment, dismiss a clear case of voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party, attack voter photo ID laws, refuse to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, threaten a congressman trying to get to the truth of the Fast and Furious Mexican gun-running scandal, and ignore the Internal Revenue Service’s mob-like persecution of conservative groups.

Mr. Holder also managed to sidestep or slow down any action regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server, or the massive irregularities of the $2 billion Clinton Foundation, the golden cash cow of open graft by the Clintons and their cronies. Meanwhile, Mr. Holder staffed the Justice Department civil rights division with hard-core leftists, as amply documented in J. Christian Adams’ book “Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department.”

The partisan corruption under Mr. Holder was so patently obvious that his departure made some folks cautiously optimistic that Ms. Lynch would put “justice” back into the Justice Department.

No such luck. She’s not only buried that hope but driven a monster truck over it.

In February, for example, Ms. Lynch’s Justice Department sided with radical groups that sued to overturn requirements for proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia and Kansas. The DOJ attorneys’ conduct was so outrageous that it drew a rebuke from a federal judge.

Last Tuesday, the Justice Department revealed that it won’t seek the death penalty for terrorist suspect Abu Khattala if he’s convicted of orchestrating the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012 that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens.

This past week, Ms. Lynch outdid herself, proclaiming that forcing schools and cities to grant transgender males access to girls and women’s restrooms and locker rooms is right up there with the noble claims of the black civil rights movement. Seriously.

So, Ms. Lynch filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against North Carolina and its Republican governor, Pat McCrory. Their offense? Enacting and enforcing a “bathroom” law that requires people to use facilities that match their sex at birth. The state law came in response to the city of Charlotte’s wacky statute opening up all facilities based on feelings rather than objectively defined sex.

Immediately, many corporate America titans like PayPal, General Electric, Pepsi and Dow Chemical joined Hollywood leftist bullies, the NCAA, and even the National Basketball Association in threatening to boycott the state.

Citing the nation’s “founding ideals,” which now apparently include protecting the “right” of certain males to enter women’s restrooms, Ms. Lynch compared their plight to Jim Crow laws and school racial segregation. Anyone opposing the transgender agenda is by her definition a hater and a bigot.

In a spectacular case of reverse logic, she said, “None of us can stand by when a state is in the business of legislating identity and insists that a person pretend to be something they are not.”

Say what? Isn’t it the men who are pretending to be women and vice versa who are forcing the issue?

“If there is no more difference between men and women than there is between blacks and whites — as Ms. Lynch seems to think — then why not eliminate all single-sex restrooms, locker rooms and dressing rooms everywhere?” asks Illinois Family Institute writer Laurie Higgins, an astute critic of cultural trends. “Why not allow all men and all women to use the same restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, showers and shelters? After all, blacks and whites do.”

The answer, of course, is that unlike skin color, the differences between male and female, rooted firmly in biology, including DNA, brain and body structure, are profound and meaningful. The distinction between male and female is at the heart of marriage, family life, morality and social order.

For Ms. Lynch to suggest that anyone who recognizes these differences and understands the need for privacy and modesty based on sex is a hateful bigot reveals her own contempt for nature and nature’s God, upon which the legitimacy of our laws rest, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Fortunately, Gov. McCrory and the legislature are standing firm, with Mr. McCrory and Republican General Assembly leaders filing countersuits in federal court over Lynch’s “baseless and blatant overreach” and “radical reinterpretation” of the Civil Rights Act.

Pundits who dismiss all this as a silly distraction miss the point. This is about far more than bathroom access. Beneath the economic wars, the left is using this issue as a spear point to test how far the average American can be pushed by government into relinquishing not only our God-given rights but our grasp of reality.

As the nation’s chief law enforcer, Loretta Lynch is putting the weight of the federal government against millions of Americans who just want to maintain some level of decency — and normalcy. God help us.

This article originally published on WashingtonTimes.com.

The New Rules of the Secular Left

The vast high-velocity moral revolution that is reshaping modern cultures at warp speed is leaving almost no aspect of the culture untouched and untransformed. The advocates of same-sex marriage and the more comprehensive goals of the LGBT movement assured the nation that nothing would be fundamentally changed if people of the same gender were allowed to marry one another. We knew that could not be true, and now the entire nation knows.

The latest Ground Zero for the moral revolution is the state of Indiana, where legislators passed a state version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Gov. Mike Pence then signed into law. The controversy that followed was a free-for-all of misrepresentation and political posturing. Within days, the governor capitulated to the controversy by calling for a revision of the law — a revision that may well make the RFRA a force for weakening religious liberty in Indiana, rather than for strengthening it.

Business, political, and civic leaders piled on in a mass act of political posturing. The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act became law in 1993 in a mass act of bipartisan cooperation. The Act passed unanimously in the U.S. House of Representatives and with 97 affirmative votes in the U.S. Senate. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law, celebrating the Act as a much needed protection of religious liberty. Clinton called religious liberty the nation’s “first freedom” and went on to state: “We believe strongly that we can never, we can never be too vigilant in this work.”

But, that was then. Indiana is now.

Hillary Clinton, ready to launch her campaign for President, condemned the law as dangerous and discriminatory — even though the law in its federal form has not led to any such discrimination. Apple CEO Tim Cook took to the pages of The Washington Post to declare that the Indiana law “would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors.” For its part,The Washington Post published an editorial in which the paper’s editorial board condemned a proposed RFRA in the state of Georgia because the law would prevent the state government “from infringing on an individual’s religious beliefs unless the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so.”

So, The Washington Post believes that a state should be able to infringe on a citizen’s religious liberty without a compelling interest? That is the only conclusion a reader can draw from the editorial.

The piling on continued when the governor of Connecticut, Dannel Mulloy announced that he would even forbid travel to Indiana by state officials, conveniently forgetting to mention that his own state has a similar law, as does the federal government. The NCAA piled on, as did a host of sports figures from across the country. More than one pundit pointed to the irony of the NCAA trying to posture on a question of sexual morality, but the pile-on continued.

Law professor Daniel O. Conkle of Indiana University stated the truth plainly when he said: “The reaction to this law is startling in terms of its breadth–and to my mind–the extent to which the reaction is uninformed by the actual content of the law.” Similarly, University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, a proponent of gay marriage, stated: “The hysteria over this law is so unjustified.” He continued: “It’s not about discriminating against gays in general or across the board . . . it’s about not being involved in a ceremony that you believe is inherently religious.”

Nevertheless, the real issue here is not the RFRA in Indiana, or Arkansas, or another state. The real issue is the fact that the secular Left has decided that religious liberty must now be reduced, redefined or relegated to a back seat in the culture.

The evidence for this massive and dangerous shift is mounting.

One key indicator is found in the editorial pages of The New York Times. That influential paper has appointed itself the guardian of civil liberties, and it has championed LGBT causes for decades now. But the paper’s editorial board condemned the Indiana law as “cover for bigotry.” The most chilling statement in the editorial, however, was this:

“The freedom to exercise one’s religion is not under assault in Indiana, or anywhere else in the country. Religious people — including Christians, who continue to make up the majority of Americans — may worship however they wish and say whatever they like.”

There you see religious liberty cut down to freedom of worship. The freedom to worship is most surely part of what religious liberty protects, but religious liberty is not limited to what happens in a church, temple, mosque, or synagogue.

That editorial represents religious liberty redefined before our eyes.

But the clearest evidence of the eagerness of the secular Left to reduce and redefine religious liberty comes in the form of two columns by opinion writer Frank Bruni. The first, published in January, included Bruni’s assurance that he affirmed “the right of people to believe what they do and say what they wish — in their pews, homes, and hearts.” Religious liberty is now redefined so that it has no place outside pews, homes, and hearts. Religious liberty no longer has any public significance.

But Bruni does not really affirm religious liberty, even in churches and in the hiring of ministers. He wrote: “And churches have been allowed to adopt broad, questionable interpretations of a ‘ministerial exception’ laws that allow them to hire and fire clergy as they wish.”

The ability of churches to hire and fire ministers as they wish is “questionable.” Remember that line when you are told that your church is promised “freedom of worship.”

But Bruni’s January column was merely a prelude to what came in the aftermath of the Indiana controversy. Now, the openly-gay columnist demands that Christianity reform its doctrines as well.

He opened his column in the paper’s edition published Easter Sunday with this:

“The drama in Indiana last week and the larger debate over so-called religious freedom laws in other states portray homosexuality and devout Christianity as forces in fierce collision. They’re not — at least not in several prominent denominations, which have come to a new understanding of what the Bible does and doesn’t decree, of what people can and cannot divine in regard to God’s will.”

Bruni issued an open demand that evangelical Christians to get over believing that homosexuality is a sin, or suffer the consequences. His language could not be more chilling:

“So our debate about religious liberty should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

There you have it — a demand that religious liberty be debated (much less respected) only if conservative believers will get with the program and, mark his language, bow to the demands of the modern age.

Christianity and homosexuality “don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere,” Bruni declared.

He reduced religious conviction to a matter of choice:

“But in the end, the continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing. It disregards the degree to which all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their authors, cultures and eras.”

So the only religion Bruni respects is one that capitulates to the modern age and is found “rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

That means giving up the inerrancy of Scripture, for one thing. The Bible, according to Bruni, reflects the biases and blind spots of the human authors and their times. When it comes to homosexuality, he insists, we now know better.

This is the anthem of liberal Protestantism, and the so-called mainline Protestant churches have been devoted to this project for the better part of a century now. Bruni applauds the liberal churches for getting with the program and for revising the faith in light of the demands of the modern age — demands that started with the denial of truths such as the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, miracles, the verbal inspiration of Scripture, and other vital doctrines. The liberal churches capitulated on the sexuality issues only after capitulating on a host of central Christian doctrines. Almost nothing is left for them to deny or reformulate.

It is interesting to see how quickly some can get with the program and earn the respect of the secular gatekeepers. Bruni cites David Gushee of Mercer University as an example of one who has seen the light. “Human understanding of what is sinful has changed over time,” Bruni quotes Gushee. Bruni then stated that Gushee “openly challenges his faith’s censure of same-sex relationships, to which he no longer subscribes.”

But David Gushee agreed with the church’s historic condemnation of same-sex relationships, even in a major work on Christian ethics he co-authored, until he released a book stating otherwise just months ago. Once a public figure gets with the program, whether that person is David Gushee or Barack Obama, all is quickly forgiven.

Bruni also notes that “Christians have moved far beyond Scripture when it comes to gender roles.” He is right to understand that some Christians have indeed done so, and in so doing they have made it very difficult to stop with redefining the Bible on gender roles. Once that is done, there is every reason to expect that a revisionist reading of sexuality is close behind. Bruni knows this, and celebrates it.

Taken together, Frank Bruni’s two columns represent a full-throttle demand for theological capitulation and a fully developed reduction of religious liberty. In his view, stated now in full public view in the pages ofThe New York Times, the only faiths that deserve religious liberty are those that bow their knees to the ever most costly demands of the modern age.

It is incredibly revealing that the verb he chose was “bowing.” One of the earliest lessons Christians had to learn was that we cannot simultaneously bow the knee to Caesar and to Christ. We must choose one or the other. Frank Bruni, whether he intended to do so or not, helps us to see that truth with new clarity.

Sources:

Frank Bruni, “Your God and My Dignity,” The New York Times, Sunday, January 11, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-religious-liberty-bigotry-and-gays.html

Frank Bruni, “Bigotry, the Bible, and the Lessons of Indiana,” The New York Times, Sunday, April 5, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html

This article was originally posted at the AlbertMohler.com website.

On Monday at the Aspen Institute’s “Aspen Ideas Festival,” Hillary Clinton offered some ideas that could have floated right out of the pot-clouded mind of a Colorado stoner.

She discussed the recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision which held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) exempts closely held companies from being compelled to violate their religious beliefs by providing abortifacients to their employees.

When a conservative makes an inartful or boneheaded statement, it’s trumpeted around the country by our unbiased “journalists” at CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC, and by the huffing and puffing posters at HuffPost. But when one of their own makes an utterly preposterous statement the sound of crickets chirping is deafening. And when the preposterous statement issues from their political high priestess, Hillary Clinton, you can almost see the glistening flop sweat as they try to figure out how to avoid addressing it.

Here’s what the Pythia Clinton prophesied in response to the recent Hobby Lobby decision:

Just think about this for a minute: It’s the first time that our court has said that a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom, which means that the …corporation’s employers can impose their religious beliefs on their employees and, of course, denying women their right to contraception as part of their health care plan. I find it deeply disturbing that we’re going in that direction.

Part of the reason I was so adamant about including women and girls in our foreign policy, not as a luxury, but as a central issue is because they are often the canaries in the mine. You watch women and girls being deprived of their rights. Some of them never had them. Some of them lose them. And among those rights is control over their bodies, control over their own health care, control over the size of their families. And it is a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are very unstable, that are anti-democratic, that are, frankly, prone to extremism, where women and women’s bodies are used as the defining and unifying issue to bring together people—men—to get them to behave in ways that are disadvantageous to women, but which prop up them because of their religion, or sect, or tribe, or whatever.

So to introduce this element into our society—We’re always going to argue about abortion. It’s a hard choice and it’s controversial, and that’s why I’m pro-choice. I want people to be able to make their own choices.

And it’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.

I know it’s a spectrum, but all these decisions about women and women’s rights and women’s bodies and women’s roles are on that spectrum. Thankfully we’re far away from a lot of countries that don’t even issue birth certificates to girls because “they’re so worthless, why would we record their births.”

So, we’re very far from that, but, this kind of decision raises serious questions.

Say what?

Allow me to summarize the priestess’s overwrought—make that, bizarre–claim: The very narrow decision that permits Christian owners of businesses to act in accordance with their religious beliefs which prohibit the taking of innocent human life is akin to the actions of primitive, tribalistic, unstable, anti-democratic, extremist societies, in which men seek to use women’s bodies to prop themselves up. Further, this judicial decision butters up the slope which will send America hurtling toward a culture in which little girls are deemed so devoid of human worth as to be denied a birth certificate.

And this from the woman who supports the “right” to kill girls in utero. In Clinton’s twisted moral universe, denial of a birth certificate is a greater moral evil than denial of birth.

Clinton claims that abortion is a difficult, controversial issue on which individuals should have the right to  decide, except of course those Christians who decide they don’t want to subsidize it.

When the interviewer pointed out that the Supreme Court’s decision was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed by her husband, Mrs. Clinton interrupted abruptly and defensively, explaining that RFRA was passed “because at that point there were real cases of discrimination against religious people.”

Yes, real cases, unlike the fake ones in which the government tries to compel Christians to subsidize the taking of innocent lives (or to use their labor in the service celebrations that God abhors.)

Why is Clinton not “very troubled” and “deeply disturbed” about the government compelling the owners of Hobby Lobby to facilitate the killing of innocents, an act which the God they serve forbids (Ex. 20:13)?

Clinton wrongly claims that a hypothetical Hobby Lobby employee will be denied contraception because “her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.” The employers’ thoughts about whether their employee should use contraception are completely irrelevant and were never part of the case. The case was about what the employers thought they should be compelled to provide to their employees.

Why did Clinton have nothing to say about the employers’ choice to spend their income in ways that are consonant with their beliefs, especially on an issue of such grave consequence? Even Clinton has acknowledged the grave implications of abortion when many years ago, she asserted that abortion should be rare (which raises the question, if incipient life is so devoid of personhood that it doesn’t deserve constitutional protection, why should it be rare?).

The demurral of owners of companies to pay for contraception does not rob women of their right to access it any more than the demurral of my employer to pay directly for my food robs me of the right to access it. People work in order to earn money to pay for the stuff they need and want. Employees have  a right and responsibility to set priorities and make spending choices in accordance with those priorities.

As to Clinton’s claim that contraceptives—and she must mean only the 4 types of contraceptives (out of 20) to which the Hobby Lobby owners objected—are “expensive,” here is what Planned Parenthood says:

The IUD is the most inexpensive long-term and reversible form of birth control you can get. Unlike other forms of birth control, the IUD only costs money in the beginning. The cost for the medical exam, the IUD, the insertion of the IUD, and follow-up visits to your health care provider can range from $500 to $1,000. That cost pays for protection that can last from 5 to 12 years, depending on which IUD you choose.

Worst case IUD scenario, it would cost $200 per year (less than $17 per month). Best case: $60 per year ($5 per month).

Plan B and Ella are two other forms of contraception that Hobby Lobby does not have to cover. These are more expensive than IUDs but they’re used only for emergency contraception—not for a woman’s regular mode of contraception, so if used properly, the annual cost would be insubstantial.

According to the Consumerist, the average American worker spends $20 per week on coffee and $37 per week on midday meals (rather than packing their lunches, which would cost about $15 per week). A Netflix subscription is $9 per month and the average monthly cost of an HBO subscription is $16. Without even looking at clothing, accessories, cosmetic, gift, travel, or dining out expenditures, I’ve just saved the average American $144 per month—more than enough to purchase Cadillac contraceptives.

And let’s not forget that women who want contraceptives have male sexual partners who have a far greater obligation to subsidize their partner’s contraceptives than do the owners of Hobby Lobby.

Maybe if the Clintons weren’t so broke, they could pay for the IUDs and Plan B and Ella prescriptions for those Hobby Lobby employees who want them.

Clinton frets about men using women to “define” and “unify” some societal constituency in order to achieve a cultural advantage. Can she with a straight face claim that Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and she are not “using women” to define and unify the Democratic Party in the service of their political advantage? Isn’t that just what these head-scratching and offensive comments from Clinton were intended to do?

Perhaps the reason for the cricket-chirping we hear from the direction of the “progressive” press is worse than merely a desire to protect Clinton’s presidential aspirations. Maybe “progressives” can’t even see how preposterous her comments are.

Help us be your voice for pro-family values! 

George Soros has been blamed by the pro-Russia crowd for sparking the anti-communist revolution in Ukraine. That was never the case, since Soros funded a small and largely ineffective non-governmental organization in Ukraine, the Renaissance Foundation. Now, a major Soros-funded group has come out with its prescription for resolving the crisis—accepting Russia’s demand that the country stay out of NATO.

Soros, the political left’s leading “dark money” donor, has shown his true colors.

NATO is hardly the anti-communist alliance it once was, but it still remains the largest pro-American group of nations on earth. That’s why the Russians hate it so much.

Ahead of the scheduled elections on May 25, the International Crisis Group (ICG) has just released a report saying Ukrainian leaders should “declare that they do not desire NATO membership.” The ICG receives a significant amount of funding from Soros’s Open Society Institute, and Soros sits on its board.

This follows former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s statements on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” show on May 11, during which he argued that Putin should be accommodated in his drive to take over Ukraine. Kissinger said the West should agree to keep Ukraine out of NATO. Kissinger, whose firm does business in Russia, says Ukraine “will be free to participate in European economic relationships, but not join NATO.”

The global elites have clearly decided that Ukraine must be sacrificed in the name of protecting the big businesses investing in Putin’s Russia.

Not surprisingly, the ICG/Kissinger position is essentially the same as the one held by Russia. The Moscow-funded propaganda channel RT features Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as saying, “The seeds for the current crisis were sown in 2008 in April during the NATO summit in Bucharest, when NATO leaders stated in a declaration that Georgia and Ukraine would be in NATO.”

But the “seeds” never sprouted and Putin invaded Ukraine anyway.

It was in 2008 that Russia invaded Georgia, taking over two regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. NATO’s April 2008 Bucharest Summit had declared, “We agreed today that these countries [Georgia and Ukraine] will become members of NATO.”

Today, however, Georgia still remains an “aspirant” for NATO membership. While Ukraine was also a candidate to join NATO, this never took place, either, with the blame falling on both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

Republicans like to forget that Bush was fooled by Putin, saying about the Russian leader in 2001, “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialog. I was able to get a sense of his soul.”

Bush thought Putin would be an ally of the U.S. after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Based on what Soros, Kissinger and the others are saying, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and takeover of Crimea, and control over the Black Sea and its strategic waterways will be left in place. The pro-Russian website Global Research notes, “the union of Crimea with Russia redefines the geopolitical chessboard in the Black Sea Basin.”

The liberal betrayal of Ukraine is something to behold and has taken place in only a few months. “Ukraine is something of a miracle,” Soros declared in an April 7 column. “A group of unarmed citizens rose up and overwhelmed a police force with orders to shoot to kill them. We are witnessing the birth of a new nation, a new Ukraine—with a limitless future made possible by people willing to sacrifice their lives for their country.”

The rhetoric sounded good. But now, these citizens are supposed to abandon their anti-communist vision of being free of Soviet/Russian control. Perhaps the Russians will restore the Lenin statues that the Ukrainians have toppled in dozens of cities.

Raising the white flag of surrender, Soros told The New York Review of Books that Western leaders “cannot prevent or reverse the annexation of Crimea. They are bound to protest it, of course, because it violates the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 that guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea, but they are not in a position to oppose it by military means.”

So Russia’s violation of international law should be excused. This seems like a strange position for the liberals to take, since they traditionally favor the power of global institutions to enforce international treaties.

What’s more, there’s no evidence that giving Crimea to Russia will end the Putin regime’s campaign to destabilize the rest of Ukraine.

“The United States and the West are not in a position to go to war over the crisis in Ukraine and Crimea, nor should they,” says the Soros-funded Center for American Progress. The best steps forward, the group argues, are “to diffuse the situation” and “proactively shape trends and expand possibilities.” This gibberish means doing nothing of a military nature.

Obama himself said recently that neither Ukraine nor Georgia “are currently on a path to NATO membership and there has not been any immediate plans for expansion of NATO’s membership.” This is appeasement of Russia, pure and simple.

Meanwhile, American taxpayers are sending financial assistance to Ukraine, in the form of around $1 billion in loan guarantees, which may inevitably flow back to Russia as payments for gas. The International Monetary Fund, partly financed by the U.S., is sending billions more.

The Ukraine aid bill passed the Senate by a voice vote, and the House by a 399-19 vote.

It’s important to support Ukraine, but not if the plan is to eventually give the Russians or their puppets control of the entire country.

The liberal betrayal is acute when it comes to Obama personally. In 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama co-sponsored (with then-Senator Hillary Clinton) a resolution urging Ukraine and Georgia admission to NATO. It unanimously passed the Senate. It was also co-sponsored by then-chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Curiously, Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden has now been added to the board of Ukraine’s largest private gas producer, Burisma Holdings, as if this will help the country stave off Russian subversion and infiltration, or perhaps buy some goodwill in Washington. It is desperation on Ukraine’s part and alienates conservatives who wanted the country to be free.

“For more than half a century, NATO has remained a vital asset in our nation’s efforts to support democracy and stability in Europe and to defend our interests and values throughout the world,” Senator Obama said in 2008. “I welcome the desire of Ukraine and Georgia to seek closer ties with NATO, and I hope that NATO responds favorably to their requests, consistent with its criteria for membership. Whether Ukraine and Georgia ultimately join NATO will be a decision for the members of the Alliance and the citizens of those countries, after a period of open and democratic debate. But they should receive our help and encouragement as they continue to develop ties to Atlantic and European institutions.”

But now that Russia has seized parts of Ukraine, Obama has taken Ukraine’s NATO membership off the table, despite what the people in that country may decide in their own free elections. Obama’s true colors are showing, too. He never wanted Ukraine to be truly free and had no desire to confront Russia.

The Hunter Biden move suggests the Democrats are trying to exploit the worsening situation, in order to make some money before the Russians and their allies take over the whole country. The next step will be for Ukraine to hire K Street lobbying firms to make the most of the surrender and save some scraps for their own benefit.

In this context, the Russian front groups are moving forward with propaganda campaigns and even street protests, such as at the NATO summit on September 4-5in Wales. “NATO is the military alliance binding Europe to US foreign policy, a foreign policy post-Iraq increasingly unpopular around the world,” says the Stop the War Coalition. “It is also the military alliance currently occupying Afghanistan.”

Interestingly, these “Stop the War” left-wing protesters don’t want to stop Putin’s war on Ukraine.

As Ukraine fights for its life as an independent nation, NATO leaders will be meeting at the luxurious Celtic Manor Resort—a golf, spa and leisure hotel—to decide the next step to take in appeasing Putin.

Joe Iosbaker of the United National Antiwar Committee is also leading the charge against NATO, appearing on the Iranian-funded Press TV to argue that “In truth, the war moves by the U.S. and NATO in Eastern Europe, and the Black Sea, and the Baltic Sea, are bringing about a new Cold War.”

Iosbaker is an interesting character. The homes and offices of he and his wife Stephanie Weiner were raided because of suspicions that they were providing support to foreign terrorist organizations. Both of them have been associated with the Marxist-Leninist Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) and the Chicago New Party that included Barack Obama.

Which country is Putin’s next target? Writing in the British Spectator, Alex Massie says, “Putin’s behavior demonstrates that, if anything, the problem with NATO expansion is that perhaps it did not go far enough. What price the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania if they were not now members of the western alliance? Even now their liberty is not guaranteed. It is not hard to see how Russian agitators could spark a contrived crisis in the Baltic states; not hard either to see how Putin might attack them again.”

Putin’s grand strategy, writes analyst Pawel Styrna, includes “rebuilding the empire.” As part of that, he says Putin’s goal is to reduce the influence of “Euro-Atlanticist” powers, i.e., the United States, Great Britain, and their allies. A “Eurasian empire,” centered around its Russian core, is the “engine” driving this “international anti-American coalition.”

In the face of the weak response to Russian aggression, can the destruction of NATO, a long-time Soviet goal, be far behind? If so, why should U.S. taxpayers finance Ukraine’s destruction with bailouts of a regime that will inevitably be transformed into a pawn of Putin’s geopolitical designs and future aggression?

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