Americans who care about liberty, equality, justice, safety, and economic prosperity should not vote for any Democrat in upcoming elections, including the 2024 presidential election.

A Democrat-controlled presidency and U.S. Congress (as well as state legislatures) will further empower the arrogant, ignorant, divisive, tyrannical cancel culture that has taken root in every major cultural institution in America. Academia, the mainstream press, Big Tech, corporate America, Hollywood, and professional medical and mental health organizations collude to censor the dissemination of ideas leftists hate and oppress those who disseminate them. The power these institutions already enjoy and employ to destroy speech rights, religious liberty, and careers is not enough to satiate the unquenchable thirst for power of leftists.

Leftists consumed by rage and bloodlust after the leaking of the U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion on Dobbs, will continue their push to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with leftists in order to ensure that the Court becomes the supreme lawmaking body in America. The U.S. Supreme Court, which was intended by America’s founders to be the weakest branch of government, is intended by leftists to become the most powerful.

A Democrat administration with a Democrat-held Congress will continue the economic carnage Biden has begun, destroying our economy through increased business regulation, increased taxes, and the destruction of the oil industry, which in turn decimates the lives and retirement income of Americans.

Assaults on religious liberty and speech rights will intensify, especially via the deceitfully named “Equality Act,” which has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with forcing compliance with policies that the homosexual community and “trans” cult want.

Democrats will continue to fight for federal funding of abortion and for a federal law protecting a non-existent moral or constitutional right of women to kill their offspring.

“Trans” cultism will continue its march through shelters, prisons, bathrooms, and locker rooms where women and girls will be forced to do private things in the presence of men and boys. Let’s remember that with Democrats in charge, male coaches who masquerade as women will be allowed in girls’ locker rooms. Democrats, ignorant of the meaning of “woman,” will continue to insult and erase women by referring to them as “birthing persons.”

Leftists will continue to try to confiscate guns and eviscerate gun rights, even if that means exploiting tragedies.

Federal promotion of toxic ideas derived from Critical Race Theory will continue to corrupt the military.

Hopes for school choice will be obliterated.

They will continue their effort to get rid of the filibuster, thereby clearing the path to easily pass any oppressive piece of legislation their Machiavellian hearts desire.

In their unholy quest to acquire and secure power in perpetuity, leftists will make sure our borders are gaping open and continue their efforts to make Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. states.

They will continue to try to dismantle the Electoral College in order to effectively disenfranchise the Republican heart of America.

A Democrat presidency would mean a great leap forward toward the revolutionary “Great Reset”—a project of a small group of mega-wealthy globalists who seek to reshape the earth and the fulness thereof. That’s not some conspiracy group’s view of the Great Reset. That’s the explicitly stated view of the mega-wealthy globalists who meet every year in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum (WEF).

The Great Reset envisions a “stakeholder” form of capitalism:

“Stakeholder capitalism,” … positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges. … The young Swedish climate activist [Greta Thunberg] has reminded us that adherence to the current economic system represents a betrayal of future generations, owing to its environmental unsustainability. Another (related) reason is that millennials and Generation Z no longer want to work for, invest in, or buy from companies that lack values beyond maximizing shareholder value.

[T]o uphold the principles of stakeholder capitalism, companies will need new metrics. For starters, a new measure of “shared value creation” should include “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) goals.

A stakeholder form of capitalism contrasts with the “shareholder” form of capitalism most notably defended by University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman. Stakeholder capitalism is essentially “woke” socialism that will redistribute wealth to achieve “equitable” results. Sound familiar? “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”? And we thought the demise of the Soviet Union meant the end of Communism.

Integral to the Great Reset are the “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) standards. Sounds innocuous as do all tyrannical leftist projects, but a closer look reveals the dark side cloaked in euphemistic language. Here’s a description of the goals of the Great Reset from the WEF’s website:

COVID-19 lockdowns may be gradually easing, but anxiety about the world’s social and economic prospects is only intensifying. … To achieve a better outcome, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism. … We must build entirely new foundations for our economic and social systems. (emphasis added)

The goals are global and radical:

The Great Reset agenda would have three main components. The first would steer the market toward fairer outcomes. … governments should implement long-overdue reforms that promote more equitable outcomes. … (emphasis added)

Anyone who’s been paying attention understands what is really meant by “fairer” and “more equitable outcomes.” The goal of globalist socialists is not the creation of fairer more equitable opportunities but, rather, the flattening of outcomes to ensure that everyone’s outcome is the same—well, everyone but the mega-wealthy globalists.

Andrew Stuttaford, editor for National Review’s financial and economic coverage, warns against “stakeholder capitalism”:

[S]takeholder capitalism is a betrayal of democracy as well as of shareholders. The power it gives to managers is used to support an agenda influenced by a cabal of activists, NGOs, representatives of the “international community,” and politicians too arrogant to go through the usual legislative channels.

Like the “social and emotional learning” (SEL) standards leftists use to indoctrinate children with leftist views on sexuality in public schools, every company rejiggered in accordance with the wishes of the WEF will be expected to implement ESG standards, that is to say, leftist environmental and social standards:

Environmental criteria may include a company’s energy use, waste, pollution, natural resource conservation, and treatment of animals. … For example, are there issues related to its … compliance with government environmental regulations?

Social criteria look at the company’s business relationships. Does it work with suppliers that hold the same values as it claims to hold? Does the company donate a percentage of its profits to the local community or encourage employees to perform volunteer work there?

In other words, wokesters will control all aspects of the economy to control citizens’ beliefs.

In an opinion piece published by The Hill, Justin Haskins, editorial director and senior fellow at the Heartland Institute shares Stuttaford’s concerns about the Great Reset:

Instead of traditional capitalism, the high-profile group said the world should adopt more socialistic policies, such as wealth taxes, additional regulations and massive Green New Deal-like government programs. …

[T]he general principles of the plan are clear: The world needs massive new government programs and far-reaching policies comparable to those offered by American socialists such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in their Green New Deal plan. …

Or, put another way, we need a form of socialism — a word the World Economic Forum has deliberately avoided using, all while calling for countless socialist and progressive plans. … For those of us who support free markets, the Great Reset is nothing short of terrifying. … America is the world’s most powerful, prosperous nation precisely because of the very market principles the Great Reset supporters loathe.

Like the mostly violent protests Americans endured in 2020, this massive economic revolution requires an army of revolutionaries:

Of course, these government officials, activists and influencers can’t impose a systemic change of this size on their own. Which is why they have already started to activate vast networks of left-wing activists from around the world, who will … demand changes in line with the Great Reset.

In October 2020, Andrew Stuttaford warned that the pace of the march toward the WEF’s socialism-infused stakeholder capitalism “will only pick up in the U.S. should Joe Biden, who has caricatured shareholder primacy and described it as ‘an absolute farce,’ be elected president.”

The warning about the Great Reset is even more urgent today. The colossal economic reset envisioned by socialists who identify as capitalists, along with dozens of other reasons, should lead Americans to choose a new path: The Great Conservative Reset.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/America-Needs-a-Great-Conservative-Reset.mp3

Written by Kay C. James

As a Black woman who grew up in the segregated South, I’m shocked and appalled with the race-baiting from mostly White left-wing politicians who are throwing around the “Jim Crow” label to score political points in the debate over strengthening our voting laws.

To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen’s line from the 1988 vice presidential debate with Dan Quayle: I knew Jim Crow. Jim Crow was no friend of mine. And these common-sense voting laws that states are adopting are no Jim Crow.

Frankly, it’s insulting that politicians are trying to manipulate Black folks like me into thinking that voting reforms that actually protect our right to vote are somehow racist. It’s insulting to be lied to, and — yes, I’m going to say it — it seems awfully racist to be thought of as so ignorant and gullible.

These state election reforms are about one thing—making it easier for American citizens to vote, while making it harder for cheaters to cheat.

Yet everyone from President Joe Biden to The New York Times to Coca-Cola and those in Hollywood are labeling voting reforms adopted in Georgia and other states as voter suppression and the new Jim Crow. There’s even a U.S. Senate hearing this week being held around this lie called, “Jim Crow 2021: The Latest Assault on the Right to Vote.”

Growing up as a Black teenager during the 1960s, I knew the tremendous sacrifices and the dangers that my friends and relatives endured to secure the right to vote for Black Americans. I myself was part of the Civil Rights Movement when I was thrust into an effort to desegregate my middle school in Richmond, Va.

So let me be perfectly clear: I have zero interest in disenfranchising or suppressing the vote of any portion of the population.

But that’s not what’s happening in Georgia or other states pursuing election reforms. And don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

As we’ve heard from the few truth tellers there are in the media, the new Georgia election reform doesn’t discourage voting or suppress votes. In fact, the availability of absentee ballots and early voting is a lot more robust than what it is in most “blue” states.

And Georgia provides a free voter ID to people without ID and has exceptions that mirror federal law. Turnout in the state as well as studies also show that ID requirements don’t suppress votes; and polling shows that voters, including Black voters, agree that voter ID is a common-sense reform. Claims that Black people are somehow unable or unwilling to obtain identification are insulting and have no basis in fact.

“You know what’s racist? Assuming because I’m black that ‘I just don’t have the capability of getting an I-D,’” Rep. Burgess Owens recently tweeted. I couldn’t agree more.

So why is the left calling these reforms racist? It’s a scare tactic and an attempt to rally support for a voting bill currently in Congress ironically called the For the People Act, or H.R. 1.

H.R. 1 would create a federal takeover of elections and force changes to election laws that would actually allow for greater fraud and election tampering. It would diminish the very voting rights that my relatives in the 1960s, the women suffragists of the early 1900s, and the men and women of the armed forces throughout our history fought so hard to gain and protect.

Under H.R. 1, no one has to prove they are who they say they are in order to vote. It’s likely to automatically add ineligible individuals like non-citizens to the voter rolls. And it outlaws or restricts safeguards that help states maintain accurate voter rolls to prevent people from voting twice. In other words, it would allow illegal votes to cancel out our legal ones.

And that’s just scratching the surface of this terrible law.

H.R. 1 isn’t for the people; it’s about creating more power for certain politicians. The people who support this bill expect that most illegal votes will favor left-wing politicians, and they are willing to dilute our legal votes by encouraging more illegal ones.

They are lying and calling common-sense voter protections racist to make people think that there is a groundswell of voter suppression coming from the states so that they can pretend to save us all with H.R. 1. But they aren’t really interested in protecting us; all they are interested in is helping themselves.

The right to vote is one of the most sacred rights that we as free citizens can exercise. That’s why we must protect it and not allow politicians to get away with pushing sinister bills like H.R. 1 that would diminish that right.

Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our republic, and every citizen — no matter their color, ethnicity, background or political persuasion — must be able to trust the voting process and its results.

The very future of a free nation depends on it.

Kay C. James is president of The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).
This article was originally published by the Washington Times.

Chinese Translation – 中文翻译

With a thrill running up his leg, Chris exclaimed that Biden’s inaugural address was the best inaugural speech he’s ever heard! No, not THAT Chris—not Chris Matthews. Chris Wallace said it was the best. He was wrong. It wasn’t the best inaugural speech ever. It was the BEST SPEECH period. I’m tearing up just thinking about how best it was.

But wait, was it? Wouldn’t the best speech necessarily be a true and honest speech?

Biden said, “[A]t this hour, my friends, democracy has prevailed. … [T]he American story depends not on any one of us, not on some of us, but on all of us. … [T]o restore the soul and to secure the future of America—requires more than words. It requires that most elusive of things in a democracy: Unity. Unity.”

I love unity, unity, as much as the next gal or nonbinary human, but I’m wondering how the efforts of Big Tech, corporate behemoths, AOC, John Brennan, and other Democrats to cancel and crush anyone who expresses ideas they hate fulfill Biden’s quest for double the amount of unity we have right now.

Just a few nights ago on MSNBC, John Brennan cheerfully told lefty Nicole Wallace that the Biden administration is “moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about” the “insurgency” composed of “religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians.” Hmmm …

So, how does the Biden administration define these groups? Will the criteria used for identifying “religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists” and “libertarians” be made public? After the laser-focused secret police uncover the plot of Brennan’s enemies to compete freely in the market place of ideas, what will be done with the dissident freethinkers? Will they be forced into PBS’s “enlightenment camps” or will AOC’s “de-radicalizing” pogroms to cleanse America of conservative Christians take care of their disunifying presence?

In the service of doubling our unity, will Biden plead with Big Tech, Big Business, AOC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and Washington Post to call off their dogs, Overlords, and spy agencies?

Will Biden plead with the press to interrogate him fairly—you know, exactly as they interrogated President Trump? Will he plead with them to take off their soiled kid gloves?

Will Biden’s executive order mandating the sexual integration of children’s locker rooms, restrooms, and sports in government schools fulfill his quest for doubling our unity?

In the spirit of unity, will Biden acknowledge that the desire of girls and women to be free of the presence of opposite-sex persons in their private spaces is natural, normal, and good?

In his laser-like focus on unity, will Biden send “guidelines” to public schools recommending they no longer promote the controversial and divisive beliefs of the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory?

How does the leftist ideological monopoly in our colleges and universities double our unity or foster democracy? We know that in addition to unity, Biden is bigly into diversity. We also know that without diversity of thought, critical thinking is impossible. So, in the service of both unity and diversity, will Biden urge college and university administrators and faculty to seek equity among faculty? Will he implore them to work diligently toward ideological parity, perhaps threatening to withhold government funds until such parity is achieved?

Will Biden condemn the cancellation of conservative speakers on campuses and the refusal to invite conservative speakers to campuses?

Will he condemn Hollywood and book publishers for their anti-conservative bigotry and de facto censorship of movies, plays, and novels with themes that criticize “progressive” ideas or embody conservative themes?

Will he denounce ugly epithets like “homophobe,” “transphobe,” “hater” and “bigot” that are hurled continuously at any Catholic or Protestant who upholds the historic teaching of the church on sexual matters? Will he agree that Christians should be free to use pronouns that correspond to scientific reality and God’s created order? Will he agree that Christian business owners should be free to make employment and service decisions in accordance with their faith?

To double our unity, will Biden urge Americans to remove lawn signs that say, “Hate has no home here,” since all Americans know those signs are a passive macro-aggressive way of leftists calling their theologically orthodox Bible-believing neighbors—both Catholics and Protestants— “haters”?

In his effort to unify the country twice over, will Biden publicly acknowledge that the claim that homoerotic acts are moral is neither a scientific claim nor objectively true?

Democrats have demonstrated that they are gung-ho about calling in the National Guard and every weapon in our formidable military apparatus to prevent further violence in the Capitol. So, in an effort to multiple our unity, will Biden beseech the New York Times to offer former editorial page editor James Bennet his job back? Bennet was the editor who was forced to resign for publishing an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton in which Cotton argued that it was legitimate to call in the National Guard to quell the unremitting violence that roiled American cities last summer.

In his inaugural address, Biden said, “This is a great nation and we are a good people.” I’m confused. Critical Race theorists have been telling us for years—and emphasizing it through arson and looting—that America is a systemically evil nation conceived in racism and dedicated to the proposition that all people of color are inferior. So, which is it?

Biden said, “I ask every American to join me in this cause. Uniting to fight the common foes we face: Anger, resentment, hatred. Extremism, lawlessness, violence.” Later, on Inauguration Day, Antifa attacked a federal building in Portland. Has Biden condemned that lawless, violent attack by angry extremists? Did he label it an attack on democracy? Did he call it an insurrection?

While his inaugural address rightly condemned the “riotous mob” that used “violence” to attack the Capitol building, Biden said not one word about the riotous mobs that attacked federal buildings; monuments; private property; and police precincts, vehicles, and officers all summer. Why did his unifying address remain mute on that violence?

If and how Biden answers those questions will give Americans a better idea about whether he wants unity in diversity or unity by crushing diversity. We’ll know if this is the beginning of the Unity Games or—as Lady Gaga’s inaugural costume suggested—the Hunger Games.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Was-Bidens-Inaugural-Address-the-Best-Ever_audio.mp3

We urge you to pray for our state and nation, for our elected officials in Springfield and Washington D.C.  

PLEASE also consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work. We have stood firm for 25 years, working to boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy.

A common refrain when people lament violence, sex and f-bombs in movies, goes: “How did we get from the golden days of Hollywood to this?”

Actually, Hollywood, with many notable exceptions, has been at war with decency and American values since its inception. It just wasn’t as starkly apparent.

If you don’t think so, take in some of those black and white films on the Turner Classic Movies channel. Sure, you won’t get nudity, gratuitous violence, or profanity, and some are delightful.  But many are not very good, with stilted dialogue and ham acting, and certain films from the Golden Era are surprisingly subversive.

A case in point is “Theodora Goes Wild,” a 1936 “screwball comedy” that netted Irene Dunn an Oscar nomination for her role as a prim, church organ-playing small-town girl who secretly writes racy novels under a pseudonym.  Upon meeting the randy illustrator of her book covers (Melvyn Douglas), she flees from the New England home she lives in with her two uptight aunts and goes hog wild in New York as the scandalous novelist “Caroline Adams.”  We’re supposed to think this is great.

What’s most subversive is the acidic portrayal of small-town America, and particularly the church ladies. They’re uniformly unattractive, small-minded gossips, backbiters and hypocrites.

The Christian life in “Theodora” is cold, boring and the enemy of a good time.   The only spark of life comes in nightclubs, parties or scenes when the protagonists put it over on the uptight yokels.  Absent is fellowship and community, the pursuit of truth, love of family and neighbor, happiness, mutual sacrifice, and God’s love, all of which are found in a vibrant church.

The deal is sealed for hedonism when the entire town turns out with a marching band to welcome home their heroine once her cover is blown. She’s now famous for writing smut, and lives happily ever after with the illustrator. Nobody but a prude would object. Life is colorful once more.  A literal version of this theme of salvific sex is expressed in “Pleasantville” (1998).

In a larger sense, this is where we find ourselves today. There’s no need for Hollywood to employ subtexts to attack the moral order when we’re already drowning in a sea of sensations. Unless you’re Amish, staying free from the pornified culture is like trying to focus on small print with a tiny book lamp in the middle of the Vegas strip.

Recent columns in Politico.com, the New York Times and National Review have explored America’s acquiescence to the porn culture. They point to the Internet tidal wave and the invention of the smart phone in 2007, which is putting adults –and children – at risk in ways undreamed of a dozen years ago.

Still, technology is only one powerful element.  The main factor is the mid-20^th Century sexual revolution, in which morality, sexual roles, family and what constitutes the good life were upended.

In his 1941 opus “The Crisis of Our Age,” Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin traced the waning of traditional American norms to just before World War II, when advertising imagery and movies became increasingly sensual.  America was an ideal-driven culture that honored virtue, duty and delayed gratification.  Then it began to slide toward a sensate culture that valued cultivating and sating appetites above all. Sorokin compared it to the decline of Greece and Rome, whose art evolved toward the sensual as the empires declined.

In “Kinsey, Sex and Fraud” (1990) and subsequent books, Judith Reisman has chronicled the enormous impact of Alfred Kinsey’s fraud-packed sex studies in 1948 and 1953.  Hugh Hefner drew inspiration from them to launch the Playboy empire, which mainstreamed porn and helped fund Roe v. Wade’s legalization of abortion. With the advent of the birth control pill and the explosion in visual stimuli, the wheels came off.

In his classic “Brave New World,” Aldous Huxley envisioned a future in which every need was met and sex was noncommital.  Anyone experiencing discomfort could take the drug “soma” to zone out on “soma holiday.”  Unlike our opioid crisis, people did not overdose on soma, but both dull the body and soul.

So here we are, with every conceivable way to gratify our appetites.

Are we happier? Does constant pursuit of sensations bring sustained joy? Not likely. That comes from purpose, accomplishment, and close bonds with family and friends.  It comes from knowing that we’re valued and loved by a creator God Who cares enough to give us rules to live by, and, as shown in Jesus’s parable of the prodigal son, forgiveness and reconnection.

Perhaps not all is lost.  There seems to be genuine concern among some in the intelligentsia over the culture’s destination. The campaign to label porn as a public health hazard is finding purchase, and what actually produces health and happiness is becoming more evident by the day.

Hollywood turns out some good flicks now and then, and there’s always hope for more uplifting fare even beyond the wholesome stuff on the Hallmark Channel. Three years after scripting “Theodora Goes Wild,” Sidney Buchman was nominated for a screenplay Oscar for “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

Robert Knight’s latest book is “A Nation Worth Saving: 10 Steps to Restore Freedom” (djkm.org/nation, 2018).

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

What is really going on with the “Weinstein women” and the multitude of others who are now coming out and pointing fingers at men who made debauched advances toward them?  Was Harvey Weinstein’s behavior only offensive because the women weren’t interested?  If  the women had been pleased to go along would that mean that his behavior was acceptable?  I have not heard one person even try to suggest such a thing, and I am quite certain I won’t.  No one believes that the only reason Weinstein’s behavior was unacceptable was because these women were a little “prudish.”

The adjectives now attached to the man include “slimy,” “pervert,” “debauched” and, well you get the drift.  In other words, if let’s say a talk show host were to suggest that these women rejected Weinstein’s advances only because they had high moral standards he would be scorned.  If he suggested it was because they were “prudes” he would be out of a job.  It is extraordinarily clear that these women saw Weinstein’s behavior as inherently offensive, and so does everyone else.  Indeed, Hollywood, as an institution, and the Left understand that they have been exposed, pun intended, and have made it abundantly clear that they also KNOW such boorish behavior is objectively offensive.

So, we are led to a very interesting place.  The light finally penetrating the darkness of that community has also exposed something even darker.  If the behavior of Mr. Weinstein et al is inherently offensive, whether the women had welcomed it or not, how can the Left declare that the identical behavior, in the homosexual community, is not only acceptable but to be celebrated?  Just catch their next parade and you will witness the same and much worse, only not in private but before the entire world!

Here is the rub: consider this other pillar of Leftist dogma, that there is no significant difference between the genders.  If certain sexual behavior is right for one gender, it must be right for both, correct?  Is that not foundational Leftist doctrine?  Will the Left now demand that these women “get over it?”  Will they call these women “haters” and “bigots?”  Will they say that it’s only offensive because they are women?  Hmmm.

Are there gender differences after all?  WOW!

The Left is on the horns of an existential dilemma, either their claim that the sexes are the same is wrong, or their claim that common homosexual behavior is normal is wrong, or both!  I vote for both.  But, the Left has never let facts get in their way before, so I have no great expectations of a sudden epiphany now.  For them, on any given day 2+2 may equal 17, 23, 64 or 1, and they see no conflict in affirming this.  We, who know that 2+2 always equals 4?  Well, we’re  just bigots.  The Left, without missing a beat, will, with great hand-wringing, allow these women to call the behavior debauched, but we, calling it debauched, are bigots.

Regardless, for those whose eyes are open it is impossible to miss the fact that the Emperor Left has no clothes.

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

-and, please-

Hollywood stands as an eclectic, self-congratulatory private club, whose mainline members flaunt wealth and hedonism, pontificating re guns and violence and the #MeToo scandals, while simultaneously producing films overflowing with guns and violence and promiscuous and perverse sex.

That coastal and SoCal enclave, brimming with egos, yet, for the most part, devoid traditional and biblical values, produces movies full of anti-faith, anti-values messages and themes. Week after week films debut that gleefully plumb the depths of depravity, cheered on by jaded critics who only wake up mid-viewing if an envelope-pushing movie grabs their attention.

Hollywood and its Lefty members and supporters, deride film efforts produced by people of faith, expecting only failure and inferior art simply because the creators espouse a belief system that Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences members disdain and don’t understand.

Given that background of low expectations, the Erwin Brothers shocked Tinsel Town’s who’s who with their recent offering, I Can Only Imagine, after the song of the same name.

Jon and Andrew Erwin started their unlikely careers as sports camera men working for the likes of ESPN and Fox NFL. They started their own production company in 2002, producing music videos, garnering Music Video of the Year at the GMA Dove Awards for three years running.

Next the Erwins moved to documentaries before finally, in 2010, changing course to produce feature length films. Their second feature film, Moms’ Night Out, a comedic romp infused with faith, starring Patricia Heaton, Sean Astin, and Trace Adkins, earned a decent box office and tremendous DVD/Blu-Ray sales. Jon and Andrew’s third offering, Woodlawn, based on the true story of God’s love overcoming the racist climate of early 1970’s Alabama football, starring Sean Astin and Jon Voight, racked up over $14 million at the box office and another $9+ million in video sales.

With I Can Only Image, Jon and Andrew Erwin raked in $17 million, coming in a very respectable third in the opening weekend box office, competing with the new Lara Croft Tomb Raider blockbuster, the pro-gay teen movie, Love, Simon, and Disney’s faith-sanitized Wrinkle in Time (in its third week).

But unlike those other Hollywood offerings, the Erwins’ film only had a $7 million dollar production budget and was shown on at least 800 fewer screens (2,000 screens will be added on March 23). In addition, I Can Only Imagine scored an A+ from CinemaScore patrons.

Why did this modest budget, faith-filled film resonate?

To start with, the 2001 song, “I Can Only Imagine,” written and performed by Bart Millard with his band Mercy Me, touched millions and was a hit on, not only Christian charts, but crossed over to “the Billboard Adult Contemporary (where it peaked at No. 5)” and received multiple awards.

The movie employed good marketing efforts, both Christian and secular venues ran the trailer and the early buzz was palpable.

But the real proof was the movie itself.

Starring J. Michael Finley (who made his Broadway debut in Les Miserables in 2014) as Bart Millard, veteran actor Dennis Quaid as Bart’s abusive father, Arthur, all-star performer Trace Adkins (who also had a key comedic, if deadpan, role in Moms’ Night Out) as the craggy agent, Brickell, and film icon Cloris Leachman as Bart’s “Memaw,” I can Only Imagine grabs the viewer emotionally early on and never lets go.

The movie follows the tough as Texas dirt childhood of Bart Millard, and the part music and faith played in sustaining and healing him. We learn of Bart’s childhood and lifelong sweetheart, Shannon (played by Madeline Carroll), who reminds Bart that she’s praying for him through it all. There’s a smaller, but significant, part of the drama coach, Mrs. Fincher (played by Priscilla Shirer, of War Room) who discovers Bart’s beautiful voice and casts him in the lead (Curly) of their high school musical, Oklahoma.

Quaid plays Bart’s dad with a gritty realism that makes him easy to despise: young Millard is physically, emotionally and verbally abused. Forgiveness comes hard. How can any son forgive a son-of-a-gun (Arthur deserved the saltier permutation of the colloquialism) like Arthur Millard?

A father is supposed to love his son, his children. A father is supposed to encourage their great aspirations. A father is supposed to protect his wife and children.

But Arthur Millard, an aging man steeped in decades of disappointment, permeated with acerbic bitterness, does none of that.

In one gut-and-heart-wrenching scene, Arthur asks, “If God can forgive everyone else, why can’t he forgive me?”

Bart, wrapped in a well-deserved wall of angry protection, spits out, “God can forgive you. I can’t.”

Viewers are left wondering where the story will take them…will Bart forgive his father? Is that the key to breaking down all the other emotional walls in his life?

Along the way, the story captures the era and includes the critical parts of Amy Grant (played by Nicole DuPort) and Michael W. Smith (played by Jake B. Miller), and the soundtrack includes ELO’s Don’t Bring Me Down, and Keith Green’s, Oh Lord, You’re Beautiful, and more.

Families will be relieved to know that, though Dennis Quaid plays wife and child beater, Arthur Millard, to a “T,” the amazingly talented Erwin brothers elicit the sucker-punching emotion with a dearth of actual violence — thank God. The film is enough of a tearjerker, bringing the movie watchers to tears and sniffles by sheer creativity, powerful acting, and music.

I Can Only Imagine, like several other soon-to-debut faith-themed movies, was perfectly timed to open a mere two weeks before the pivotal Christian “holy day” marking the triumph of death over life, of blessing over cursing, and of hope over despair.

As my friend Elizabeth Johnston, aka “The Activist Mommy,” posted:

What an incredibly powerful story. The depth of pain and joy and forgiveness in this movie is sure to change thousands of people’s lives! Please, please, please load your car up with people and go see this incredible film this weekend!

Thank you so much to The Erwin Brothers for your tireless work on this project! You’ve got a winner here!

And thank you to Bart Millard of MercyMe Music for showing us all what it means to forgive like Jesus.

And the crux of the matter is forgiveness. Bart Millard learned the priceless lesson of real love and forgiveness.

Think of the words of the John:

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:7-8)

Add to that Paul’s admonition to the church at Corinth:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

Jon and Andrew Erwin, along with Producer Kevin Downs (who starred in Courageous and Moms’ Night Out) and Executive Producer Cindy Bonds, have done the near-miraculous: created a movie which moves audiences to laughter and tears and applause AND achieves box office success without insulting our faith and values. Indeed, I Can Only Imagine paints a dramatic picture of faith and forgiveness and reconciliation on the big screen.

Thank-you Jon and Andrew for this movie, a cinematic work of art which serves as a beacon of light in this dark, dark world! Here’s hoping you have long careers, honoring Truth and Life, using the big screen for the biggest message the world has ever known.

Written by Gene Mills

The ‘deplorable’ reports keep flowing out of Hollywood, including the sophisticated cover-up which afforded a powerful predator, Harvey Weinstein, to stalk and then silence dozens of victims. One would assume that the “are you kidding me?” response given to Vice President Mike Pence’s personal ethical guidelines earlier this year, regarding his treatment of women other than his wife, might get a more favorable reconsideration in light of the Hollywood ethic. Reporters, academics, entertainers, and art enthusiasts claim to envision a ‘respect women’ ethic. I can only wonder which vision best aligns with their’s – Weinstein or Pence?

Based on a Washington Post article , Pence said “that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side.” Thought childish by some morality whisperers, Pence, rather, is to be commended for his extremely high esteem for women in general, and specifically for his own wife! 

Actress and producer, Jessica Chastain, had this criticism for her colleagues on the Weinstien ethic: “Oh we’re very quick to point the finger at others and address the issue with social action and fundraising,” then she continued. “Yet there is a clear disconnect between how we practice what we preach in our industry.” 

Jessica, we call that hypocrisy and any response that denies basic human nature is sheer ignorance. Humans can do all kinds of cruel and shameful things. It’s unfortunate, but it’s also true. We call that the depravity of man, remedied only In Christ!

Pence seems to grasp the essence of what is at stake as well as the value of each life encountered. That’s why he takes reasonable precautions – to honor his covenant, his bride, and the women he encounters. Paul wisely warned, “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” 1 Cor. 10:12

My hope is that my wife and daughters would be treated to the ‘Pence standard’ and that I would treat the daughters and wives of others with the very same value I desire for the Mills women! Perhaps, we could restore the dependable and durable respect, which every human deserves. As for the deplorability quotient, we should consider that while Hollywood is extremely talented, most of their ranks are not a reliable source for morality, advice or truth. It is Proverbs which teaches, ‘drink water from your own fountain!‘ Excellent advice which could have saved Harvey Weinstein alot of trouble if he had chosen to heed the warning. 

Men, I challenge you to take the Pence Respect pledge. It restores some values we have lost along the way. 

This article was originally published by the Louisiana Family Forum.

There is a new Harris Poll that finds that audiences are growing tired of profanity-filled movies coming from Hollywood.  However the study also seems to reveal a lack of discernment as well in my opinion.  Perhaps the pervasiveness of profanity has already lowered standards.

Three profanities, two blasphemous ones and one vulgarity were measured and found to be offensive to the point of losing some audience members.   The use of Jesus’ name as a swear word was the biggest offense with 33 percent of the general public saying they would be less likely to see a movie if they knew this profanity would appear beforehand.

There were demographic differences of interest in this study. Republicans were almost twice as likely (45 percent vs. 25 percent) to avoid profanity-laced movies with certain words than were Democrat moviegoers.  More than half of viewers over the age of 72 avoid movies with profanity.  Young people are the least offended by profanity in movie dialogue.

However, among all groups, Evangelical Christians were the most likely to avoid movies with profanity.  Nine out of ten said they might avoid a film using Christ as a swear word.  Other words I can’t reference also came in as strong deterrents.

That may not mean Christians have a high sense of moral discernment.   The poll also found that while Christians object to other “milder” words like Hell, “S” or “D” . . . none of those words scored above 50% offensive among Evangelicals!    Have those words become so common that they now fail to concern most of this large segment of society?   (Pastors searching for a sermon this month may want to revisit James chapter 3.)

Read more HERE.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

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 Christians
• Performs a spiritual assessment
• Sends you daily Scriptures to encourage and equip you
• You determine when and how much content you get

Imagine if families could enjoy a movie together without the fear of being bombarded with nudity, crude language, or excessive gore. Up until recently, families could do just that. That is, until Disney and its Hollywood cohorts wielded their dark magical legal powers.

VidAngel enabled families to stream a huge array of mainstream movies and tv shows from the internet into their homes. But unlike other streaming services, the service allowed customers to filter out potentially offensive material like vulgar language, gore, drug use, and sexual content. VidAngel would bleep out any words or simply skip over scenes that were selected by the user to be filtered out.

Though it did not improve the overall cinematic production of movies (a filtered version of Batman vs. Superman was still painful to sit through), VidAngel, in many ways, made family movie nights safe again.

But in December 2016, Disney, LucasFilm, Warner Bros. and 20th Century FOX sued VidAngel, arguing the movie streaming and filtering subscription service violated copyright law.

The District Court granted the plaintiff’s preliminary injunction, forcing VidAngel to shut down the video streaming service while the litigation is underway.

VidAngel has appealed the injunction and the two sides will present oral arguments before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 8 in Pasadena, California.

What the appellate court decides is not the end of the matter, but will determine whether VidAngel can continue to stream content until the lawsuit is over. The decision on the injunction will come down in the upcoming months. The ultimate fate of VidAngel will not be known for quite some time.

Hollywood has long disdained the filtering of offensive content and the major studios religiously sue any filtering service they can. VidAngel and other services have offered to pay for licensing rights but are continuously refused.

To circumvent Hollywood’s refusal to license videos, VidAngel purchased massive amounts of physical DVD’s from retail stores. The customers then would purchase the movie from VidAngel, stream and watch the movie and then sell it back after they are done watching. VidAngel claims to only sell and buy back the same number of movies in proportion to the number of physical DVDs it has in its warehouse. Thus, VidAngel argues it is not breaking copyright and licensing law because the customers actually own copies of the films being filtered.

Yes, it’s confusing.

This video provides clarity about the business model and the lawsuit, described by Studio C’s Matt Meese.

Until the lawsuit is settled, families can use review sites such as PluggedIn.com and CommonSenseMedia.org to see in advance what offensive content is  in their movies, TV shows, video games, music, and even books.

Take ACTION:  Please pray that the Family Movie Act is upheld and that VidAngel’s family-friendly streaming business can resume.

IFI Text Alerts!

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

Stay in the loop with IFI by texting “IFI” to 555888 to be enrolled right away.

Click HERE to donate