As we head into the next presidential campaign season, it would serve us well to remember how leftist hatred and the lies they created to serve their hatred have caused ordinary Americans to suffer.

Leftist hatred of former President Trump resulted in the election of the senile mob boss Joe “Bananas” Biden, who has destroyed virtually every good thing Trump did during his four years in the White House. (Ironically, leftists consumed by hatred hurl the epithet “hater” at anyone who holds different moral views than they do.)

With his ill-conceived COVID and economic policies, Bananas Biden destroyed a once- flourishing economy that helped communities of color. Democrats don’t really care about the welfare of those communities. Rather, they exploit those communities for votes. If they did care, they wouldn’t incentivize fatherlessness, celebrate single-sex family structures, and deny families school choice. If Democrats did care about families of color, they wouldn’t defund the police and release criminals who plunder communities already ravaged by crime and poverty.

While Trump presided over the historic Abraham Accords and foreign policies that kept bad actors in check, the feckless Biden emboldened tyrannical regimes.

Biden’s fear of the hysterical AOC and other climate Chicken Littles rendered the energy-rich United States oil-dependent again, thereby contributing to gas prices that influence-peddlers can afford, but ordinary Americans cannot.

Biden’s enthusiastic support for racist academic theories half-baked in Ivory Towers intensified racial division in America. Judge people by the color of their skin and their genitalia—especially if that genitalia is fake—say Biden and his collaborators. Normalizing racism and “trans” nonsense sits squarely at the top of Biden’s list of unprincipled convictions.

The anti-woman Biden embraced science-denying “trans” cultic beliefs, thereby robbing all citizens of their intrinsic right to privacy in shared private spaces, jeopardizing the safety of girls and women, and destroying women’s sports.

Biden opened wide the Southern border floodgates to law-breakers whom Bananas ships around the country under cover of darkness after giving them smart phones.

While Trump presided over the development and delivery of the COVID vaccine at lightning speed, Biden left his slimy, sluggish mark on the delivery of COVID-testing kits.

Worst of all, Biden the fake Catholic, dismantles every policy that protects preborn humans and supports any law that enables women to order the killing of their living offspring up until birth.

All of this harms ordinary citizens of every color, while the wealthy, powerful, and well-connected remain immune from the consequences of their corrosive decisions.

The achievements during Trump’s brief tenure were all the more remarkable in that he had to contend with Democrats in Congress who were determined to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to promote what they knew to be lies in order to unseat a duly elected president. That, in leftist la-la land is an ethically defensible way to refuse to accept the results of an election. Manufacturing a Russian collusion hoax involving FBI agents, wasting taxpayer money, and lying to judges to unseat a sitting president is the modus operandi of the proudly non-insurrectionist Democrat party

At the same time, Trump had to contend with relentless assaults by a shockingly partisan and hostile press more skilled at licking the muck boots of the DNC than at journalism. They will attack Republicans with a viciousness that only ethics-free bullies would engage in. This was a press so full of hatred and so petty that no women’s magazine invited the most beautiful First Lady in history to appear on its cover. Some might call that micro-aggressive.

Many on the left and a fair number of people on the right argue that Trump is a flawed man. No argument there. Who among us isn’t? Liar extraordinaire Adam Schiff? Nancy let-them-eat-cake- while-I-get-my-hair-done Pelosi? Hillary Clinton, whose list of ethical violations—including attacking the victims of her husband’s sexual predations—is too long to enumerate? Yet no mention of their corruption from the haters and liars on the left who concocted wild conspiracy theories and a web of lies involving powerful government agencies to—dare I say it—rig the election.

There are many ways to rig elections, at least three of which were at play in 2020:

First, the cognitively fading Joe Biden was largely concealed from the public eye, and the bootlicking press found nothing troubling with his cellar dwelling. Had any Republican, let alone Trump, engaged in such obvious campaign avoidance, he or she would have been savaged. Even a woman of color—if Republican—would have been savaged.

Second, social media superhero Meta-Man, aka Mark Zuckerberg, and his wife poured millions—$419 million—of their own money, laundered through two non-profits to ensure Biden’s win. In other words, they surreptitiously plopped down their bars of gold onto the scales of equity.

And third, another social media mogul, the pixilated Jack Dorsey, banned from Twitter a major story about the laptop of the second-in-command of the Biden crime family, Hunter Biden. Other press outlets followed suit, thereby keeping information from voters about a real influence-peddling/collusion scheme involving the Bidens, Ukraine, and China.

So, as we enter the presidential campaign season, let’s not be deceived by lies, nor distracted by a quixotic quest for a perfect candidate. There will be none. Support candidates whose policies will result in conditions that allow free speech, religious liberty, and human life to flourish. Reject candidates whose party seeks to constrain speech; undermine religious liberty; indoctrinate children; kill humans in the womb; foment racism; endanger the safety of girls and women; subordinate human needs to the desires of climate hysterics; facilitate border lawlessness and criminality in our cites; and render America less safe from enemies foreign and domestic.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Hatred-Animates-the-Left.mp3

Recently, America’s foolish president issued a foolish Transgender Day of Visibility Proclamation in which he pledged support for a bill that will jeopardize First Amendment religious free exercise and speech protections for conservative Americans. In his Proclamation, Biden also called for all Americans to adopt his controversial beliefs on cross-sex impersonation. Once again Biden—the self-identifying unity president—has intensified division.

Ordinary Americans—as opposed to those who make millions by selling political influence—fret about how they will pay for groceries and gas. They worry about fentanyl and criminals pouring over the southern border and about illegal immigrants being dumped by the government in their cities in the dark of night.

What keeps Joe Biden awake in the afternoon? Does he worry about the 56,000 synthetic opioid—mostly fentanyl—deaths in 2020? Or about the 900,000 humans killed in the womb annually? Do the 21,000 murders in 2020 cause him sleepless afternoons? Not so much. It appears from his Proclamation that what troubles Biden is what he calls “the epidemic of violence” against cross-dressers. That would be about 50 people killed in 2021, many of whom were victims of domestic violence—not anti-“trans” hate crimes. While every murder is a tragedy, 50 deaths does not an epidemic of violence make.

The name “Transgender Day of Visibility,” is intended to convey the fiction that on all other days, cross-sex impersonators are invisible. This, my friends, is what is called “gaslighting.” As Chastity “Chaz” Bono, Jaron Bloshinksy (“Jazz Jennings”), Roderick “LaVerne” Cox, Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner, Richard “Rachel” Levine, Bradley “Chelsea” Manning, Ellen “Elliot” Page, Gavin “Laurel” Hubbard, William “Lia” Thomas, Larry “Lana” Wachowski, Andy “Lilly” Wachowski, and scores of drag queens and teens masquerade as the sex they aren’t, invading bathrooms where they don’t belong, leftists claim “transgender” persons are invisible.

In his Royal Proclamation last week, Biden declared his enthusiastic support for the ruinous anti-constitutional Equality Act. The Equality Act has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with advancing the alchemical superstition about the alleged ability of humans to become the opposite sex through desire, cross-dressing, hormone-doping, and mutilating cosmetic surgery.

In order to accomplish the end goal of eradicating all public recognition of sex differences, “trans”-cultists must eradicate the ability of free people to speak freely their beliefs about “gender” and sex.

Lawmakers in thrall to or terrified by the “trans”-cult stripped the Equality Act of religious protections. Numerous legal scholars have warned that the passage of the Equality Act poses the most significant threat to constitutional protections of the free exercise of religion ever in America’s history.

Mary Hasson, graduate of Notre Dame Law School and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., testified about this threat at a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing:

The Equality Act threatens serious harm to religious believers and religious organizations. … The Equality Act attacks First Amendment rights as well, inserting language that attempts to tip the scales against believers if they assert claims under the First Amendment or Equal Protection.

The Equality Act … expand[s] “public accommodations” to permit discrimination claims wherever Americans “gather,” even virtually. The result? Churches, synagogues, temples, faith-based schools, soup kitchens, and shelters for battered women will be subject to government coercion pressuring them to compromise their religious beliefs or risk endless litigation.

Recipients of federal funds, including houses of worship, religious schools and other faith-based organizations are litigation targets under the Equality Act as well—even for something as simple as maintaining sex-segregated bathrooms. This means a Muslim food bank, Catholic homeless shelter, or Christian center for female survivors of domestic violence will be punished for doing good while following their religious teachings.

Similarly, any private school that enrolls students who receive Pell grants or who participate in school lunch programs are subject to the Equality Act’s sex discrimination provisions. Urban Catholic schools, for example, which provide life-changing education to low-income children would face an untenable choice: violate their deeply held religious beliefs about human nature, sexual difference, and marriage or close their doors to students who rely on federal help. Adoption and foster care programs run by religious believers who desire to serve the most vulnerable are also at risk.

Biden said one true thing in his Royal Proclamation. He said that those who identify as “transgender” are “made in the image of God and deserving of dignity, respect, and support.” Every human is created in the image of God, but that image is marred by our sinful desires and acts. Humans deserve respect by virtue of being humans—despite the sinful things we desire and do.

One’s dignity—the state or quality of being worthy of honor—is undermined by sinful acts like cross-dressing and mutilating one’s God-created, healthy body.

“Trans”-identifying persons do deserve support, but life and truth-affirming support should never include participating in a delusion or facilitating artificially induced cessation of natural biological processes and surgical mutilation of healthy, properly functioning parts of sexual anatomy.

When promoting false beliefs about “gender identity,” the left talks a lot about “authenticity” without providing their definition—or redefinition—of the term. The American Heritage Dictionary defines “authentic” as “conforming to fact and therefore worthy of trust, reliance, and belief.” As such, a man seeking to pass as a woman is the antithesis of authenticity, and celebrating cross-sex-passing robs men and women of dignity.

Leftists have also redefined “identity.” Homosexual activists first transformed the concept of “identity,” and then seeing how effective a propaganda tool the revised concept of identity was, cross-sex impersonators culturally appropriated it.

Homo-activists sought to recast identity as something intrinsically inviolable, immutable, and good. They sought to refashion identity in such a way as to make it culturally taboo to make judgments about any constituent feature of identity. They re-imagined identity in such a way as to move homoeroticism from the category of phenomena about which humans can legitimately make moral distinctions to one about which society is forbidden to make judgments.

Identity in its former incarnation was merely a way of describing someone. Identity when applied to individual persons denoted the aggregate of phenomena constituting, associated with, experienced and affirmed by individuals. Identity was “the set of behavioral and personal characteristics by which an individual is recognizable as a member of a group.”

Identity was not conceived as some intrinsically moral thing, because identity could refer to either objective, non-behavioral, morally neutral conditions (e.g., height or skin color) or to subjective feelings, beliefs, and volitional acts that could be good or bad, right or wrong. Prior to the new and subversive conceptualization of identity, there existed no absolute cultural prohibition of judging the diverse elements that constitute identity.

By conflating all the phenomena that can constitute identity, “progressives” demanded that society should no more make judgments about feelings and volitional acts than they should about skin color.

In short, this is what “progressives” think about identity (except when it comes to those whose identity is found in Christ):

• All phenomena that make up identity are off-limits to moral judgment.
• Cross-sex impersonation is part of identity.
• Therefore, cross-sex impersonation is immune from moral judgment.

But if all conditions constituted by powerful, persistent, unchosen desires and the behaviors impelled by such feelings are part of this new and culturally destructive understanding of identity and, therefore, immune from moral judgment, then zoophilila/bestiality, “minor-attraction,” “Genetic Sexual Attraction,” and polyamory/promiscuity are immune from moral judgment.

Biden announced that “We celebrate the activism and determination that have fueled the fight for transgender equality.” Presumably, he is using the royal “we” since not all Americans celebrate “trans” activism, which is destroying all respect for and public recognition of sex differences. No more biologically based clubs for boys and girls, no more single sex bathrooms, no more girls’ sports.

Equality means to treat like things alike. As such, “trans”-cultists and their collaborators like Biden are promoting anti-equality. They are demanding that unlike things—that is men and women—be treated as if they’re alike in every context, including contexts in which sex differences matter.

When Biden refers to the “discrimination that the transgender community continues to face across our Nation and around the world,” he is using the word “discrimination” to describe moral beliefs about cross-dressing and mutilating cosmetic procedures with which he disagrees. If moral disapproval of ideas or volitional acts constitutes discrimination, then Biden’s disapproval of the beliefs of Christians on “gender” and sex as well as the acts impelled by those beliefs constitutes discrimination.

Applying consistently leftist redefinitions of authenticity, identity, and discrimination would mean that no one could express disapproval of any beliefs, desires, or volitional acts. These redefinitions pave the broad way to moral anarchy.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Biden-the-Unity-President-Divides-Again.mp3

The Biden Administration’s efforts to trample our Second Amendment rights fall into two categories: overt and covert.

In the more overt category is the game of “changing semantics”- the evolution of word usage usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. This trend seems to be happening at an ever quickening pace. Even words once easily defined such as “woman” have the power to stump some of our nation’s most educated–case in point– Ketanji Brown Jackson—President Joe Biden’s recent nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Another word not so easily defined is “terrorist.” Historically considered to be “an individual and/or group committing criminal acts to further ideological goals,” it now is evolving to mean “concerned parents voicing those concerns at a school board meeting.” Recently, parents have had good reason for legitimate concerns. From school policies resulting from the pandemic such as shutdowns and unnecessary masking to abrupt changes in curriculum such as Critical Race Theory and “Comprehensive” Sex Education, parents were showing up at their local school board meeting and demanding to be heard and their views considered.

So last fall, the National School Board Association (NSBA) sent a letter to President Biden urging the administration to classify “these heinous actions” of concerned parents as “the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes” quickly prompting U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to issue his own memo promising “a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel” and directing the FBI and U.S. Attorneys to coordinate with state and local authorities on the matter.

What exactly is going on here? Is the main concern behind the broadening of the term “terrorist” really the safety of school personnel? Or are there more nefarious reasons at work? Gun-control maybe? After all, a terrorist should not be sold a gun. And although Garland testified before Congress: “I do not think that parents getting angry at school boards for whatever reason constitutes domestic terrorism,” FBI whistleblowers revealed that a tag has been created to track “threats specifically directed against school board administrators, board members, teachers, and staff”–effectively broadening the definition of “terrorist” to now include concerned parents.

Which seems to be a just one arm of a emerging world-wide trend. The United Kingdom just passed a bill declaring that anybody that goes against the official narrative with “propaganda” will be charged criminally even if later information reveals they were correct.” This could be the direction we are headed here in the U.S.

In the more covert and disturbing method of trampling 2nd Amendment rights is a trick as old as the hills–the hiding of gun control measures within the recent $1.5 Trillion Infrastructure Bill which sends $13.6 Billion to Ukraine. The bill passed the U.S. Senate with bi-partisan support (68-31) and was signed by President Biden.

Hidden in the 2207 pages of this omnibus bill is the previously rejected Violence Against Women’s Act (VAWA). While its title sounds harmless enough, it originally failed due to its gun-control provisions. The resurrected version contains a major change in current law–the NICS Denial Notification Act of 2022.

Anyone who has purchased a gun or is knowledgeable about the procedure knows that a criminal background check is conducted before someone receives a “green light” on the purchase. This system is utilized literally thousands of times a day across the country and is not without its problems. Would be gun-purchasers often face never-ending delays or, much to their surprise, flat out denials.

According to Gun Owners of America, the FBI itself admits that it’s often wrong on gun-related background check denials. And when an appeal to the denial is filed,  “27.7 percent of [the denials] are overturned”, and the firearm purchase is approved. Yet according to the research published by Professor John R. Lott, these denials are wrong 99 percent of the time!

Now comes the dangerous part. The NICS Denial Notification Act of 2022 passed as part of the Infrastructure Bill will NOW require the criminal investigation of all denials on the National Instant Criminal-Background-Check System (NICS). That’s right. If you happen to be part of the 27.7 percent who are erroneously denied your gun purchase–even when that denial is appealed and corrected–an immediate and mandatory criminal investigation is opened into that person (you!) and sent to not only local authorities but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms as well. This gives local authorities and lawyers the Federal authority to create a database on you and snoop into your social media posts, spending habits, etc. The time to be alert is here.

While all of our God-given, Constitutionally protected rights are precious, perhaps the most precious is the Right to Bear Arms for it is the right needed to protect all of the others.

“The beauty of the Second Amendment is
that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”   
~Thomas Jefferson

If you ever doubted that we wrestle against spiritual forces of evil who call good evil and evil good, then please watch these two videos of brief statements made on the floor of the Illinois House on Wednesday.

First, watch this video of one of Illinois’ finest lawmakers, the always gracious Tom Morrison (R-Palatine), who civilly expressed his views on the injustice of eradicating public recognition of sex differences, including in women’s private spaces and sports.

Then watch this video of Illinois’ worst lawmaker, the sanctimonious, arrogant, and venomous lesbian Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), who, in response to Morrison, hurled indefensible lies at him, refusing even to use his name.

I urge you to watch these videos because how each Illinois House member spoke is almost as important as what they said. But for your convenience, the transcripts of both statements are set forth below, beginning with Morrison’s. Please read it carefully, so you are able to discern whether Cassidy’s response was justifiable:

For these past several weeks, we’ve been hearing facts about women’s history month, and I’m sure that we’ll hear more facts today and this week. When we hear those words, we think about our own mothers, wives, daughters, other notable women throughout history. We objectively know what a woman is, but it’s become increasingly common now to pretend that we don’t know. This is becoming George Orwell’s 1984. It’s Newspeak. It’s gaslighting. It’s activists pounding the table to declare that two plus two equals five. And that does not make it so. Demands that society accept lies as facts in the name of tolerance, inclusion, and justice is anything but. It’s not right, compassionate, or just.

This past weekend, the NCAA allowed a man to become a national champion in women’s swimming. This action was months and years in the making, and it denied that rightful place of honor to actual female athletes, several of whom were denied being named All Americans because their place was taken by University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas. Anyone who thinks that fairness in sports competition is the only issue here is missing the point.

Months ago, teammates of Lia Thomas complained to school officials that Thomas had exposed male nudity repeatedly in their locker room. This should have been a clearcut case of indecency and harassment, but university officials ignored the women’s concerns and discomfort. “Listen to women.” In this case, hardly.

Parents in Los Alamitos, California last month sent their fifth-grade girls on a three-day overnight school science field trip. After the weekend concluded, the girls told their parents that three male counselors who identify as non-binary shared those cabin quarters with the girls for each of the nights. Schools in Illinois already have similar policies. And most parents don’t even know, nor will they be told by school officials, less they be accused of discrimination.

In several states, including California, Washington State, and even here in Illinois, hundreds of male inmates, many of whom are serving time for sexual crimes or other crimes of violence are self-declaring as female or non-binary. And they’re getting a transfer to a women’s-only facility. There’s no requirement for surgery, no requirement for hormone therapy. Even if that did make the policy less bad, any sane person realizes how outrageous this is, but the practice continues and is expanding as more individuals realize what they can get away with.

According to a press report, President Joe Biden is now reportedly planning or considering I should say an executive order modeled after the California law, which would allow federal inmates to self-identify their gender and choose between a male or female prison.

Ideas have consequences. It is a minority of vocal activists who continue to push this ideology on all levels of society, including to young school children. It’s an ideology that is at war with reality, and we must stop blindly going along.

We can and should be kind to individuals who suffer from gender dysphoria, but we can do so without completely and irrationally upending society, which is already happening at lightning speed. If we really believe in the protection of women and women’s rights, we must acknowledge the harms being done and bring a stop to this, including the silence and passive acceptance about what’s really going on.

I imagine that here in this body, and perhaps beyond this chamber, there will be some who will try to condemn me and my words, but I’d like to close with these words by columnist Selwyn Duke: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”

Thank you.

Now read Cassidy’s statement:

Last week, my constituent Elise Malary was pulled out of Lake Michigan. Elise was a shining example of what we want people to do and be in our community. She was part of our community on the North Side. She was dedicated to uplifting the people that she lived and worked with every day. She is one of too many black trans women whose lives mean nothing to the man on the other side of this room. She is one of many transgendered youth who are at increased risk of suicide because of the actions of people like the man that just spoke.

We are watching around the country as right-wing politicians take aim at trans youth and their families picking on the least of these. I’ve watched for years as my colleague has tormented trans youth in his community. And the brave young woman who stood up to that behavior is now my constituent as well. And to every trans youth out there listening,  to every parent who loves and affirms their children as God gave them to them, that’s not happening here in Illinois.

We will not follow in the footsteps of states that are tormenting these families and driving them away. We will embrace our youth. We will protect our youth and we will work together to solve the epidemic of murders and suicides among trans women in our community because we actually love and care for people as God made them. I don’t want to hear any more hate speech on this floor, not from anyone. And if we can only do one thing to honor Elise Malary’s memory, it’s to do that. Hate speech does not belong on this floor, not now, not ever.

For those who don’t know, “Elise” Malary, was a 31-year-old man who identified as a woman. He was not—as Cassidy implied—a “youth.” His age doesn’t make his death less tragic. Rather, his age reveals how misleading and manipulative Cassidy is.

To summarize, Morrison believes it is unjust for women to lose sports awards and records to biological men. He believes it is unjust for adult men to room with young girls. And he believes it is unjust for female prisoners to be housed with male criminals.

So too do feminists from the other side of the political aisle, including the Women’s Liberation Front, Naomi Wolf, Kara Dansky, the Women’s Declaration International, and J.K. Rowling. In Cassidy’s view, are all these left-leaning feminists—including many lesbians—guilty of hate speech for expressing their belief that sex-based rights exist and that denial of them is unjust? Does defending the sex-based rights of girls and women constitute the tormenting of gender-dysphoric boys in Cassidy’s distorted view?

I have seen and heard a lot of repugnant things spewed by the unscrupulous demagogue Cassidy, but nothing as repugnant as her exploitation of a tragic death to smear of one of Illinois’ finest public servants. In her vitriolic diatribe, she trembled with unrighteous rage as she falsely accuses Morrison of not caring about the death of a “black trans youth.” What is her evidence for this allegation?

What evidence did Cassidy provide for her malignant claim that Morrison doesn’t care about the deaths of “trans”-identifying youth or that his words about the reality and meaning of objective, immutable biological sex causes the suicide of “trans”-identifying youth?

What is Cassidy’s evidence that Morrison hates and “torments” trans people? What is her evidence that Morrison (or the millions of men and women who share his beliefs on gender dysphoria) hates those who identify as “trans”? Does Cassidy hate everyone who believes differently than she does on gender, sex, and “sexual orientation”? If so, then she must hate a huge swath of people, including many Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims.

What is her evidence that God “made” gender dysphoria? Did God make Minor Attraction? Zoophilia? Genetic Sexual Attraction? Did God make body dysmorphia? Did God make schizophrenia? Did God make cleft palate or spinal bifida? Or does God make humans in a world corrupted by the fall that results in disordered bodies, minds, and hearts?

In Cassidy’s view, does “loving and caring for others just the way God made them” include loving and caring for Christians just the way God made them? Does such love demand she affirm all their desires, beliefs, and actions? Does caring for and loving pedophiles or hebephiles require affirming their feelings and identities?

Is Cassidy aware that many in the medical and mental health communities believe that gender dysphoria and “trans”-identification may be symptoms—like depression and anxiety—of underlying causes, including autism, trauma, abuse, and psychosocial experiences?

Is she aware that hospitals in Sweden and the UK have stopped providing hormonal “treatment” to minors? Are they hateful? Should they be prohibited from speaking? While children and teens with gender dysphoria need compassion and treatment, the disputed question is what kind of treatment is best. Disagreeing with Cassidy on the best path forward does not constitute hatred of gender-dysphoric youth.

Cassidy concludes with an astonishing display of arrogance. Cassidy arrogates to herself the right to define “hate speech” and then arrogates to herself the right to ban it from the House floor? Unbelievable hubris.

Word to Cassidy, Christians think her assumptions about gender, sex, and “sexual orientation” are false and destructive. Many Christians feel uncomfortable and even marginalized by what they view as her hate speech and her attempts to silence dissent. They find her words as intolerant and bigoted as she finds the words of Rep. Morrison.

Why did no Republicans respond to Cassidy’s intemperate, uncivil, indefensible statement? Are there no Republicans with the integrity and courage to speak publicly as Morrison did on this issue of profound importance? Are there no Republicans willing to call for Cassidy to be censured?

Republicans who said nothing following Cassidy’s calumny should be ashamed.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Kelly-Cassidy-Hits-New-Ethical-Low.mp3

Anyone tired of “masking up” to enter an airport or get on a flight? There may be an end in sight largely thanks to U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY).  Although the air travel mask mandate was set to end on March 18, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) extended the mandate until April 18. But the extension begs the question, “Will it really end then?” Now Paul and others have taken real action to end the mandates once and for all.

The first promising step is S.J.Res 37. This resolution, introduced by Paul this past February, passed in the U.S. Senate recently by a vote of 57-40. Better yet, it represents bi-partisan support with eight Democrat senators voting in support of the resolution: Michael Bennet (D-CO), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) and Jon Tester (D-MT). In typical fashion, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) was the only Republican to vote against the bill.

Still, this measure, which expresses disapproval of the CDC’s mask mandate, faces significant challenges in the days ahead if it is to become law. The amount of votes it received are not enough to override President Biden’s veto threat. Moreover, proponents must garner enough support to overcome U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s reluctance to let the member of the House vote on it. But should the resolution fail to pass through its trip to becoming law, all hope is not lost.

Members of Congress, 17 to be exact, have filed a suit against the CDC which would end the federal mask requirement for passengers both on commercial flights and in airports. First names on the suit are, once again, U.S. Senator Rand Paul as well as U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), both of whom filed the suit in their home state of Kentucky. Other GOP House members: Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Paul Gosar (D-AZ), Dan Bishop (R-NC), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Andrew Clyde (R-GA), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Warren Davidson (R-OH), Bob Good (R-VA), Brian Mast (R-FL), Bill Posey (R-FL) and Matt Rosendale (R-MT).

One of the best implications of this suit is its potential to end the government and, especially, unelected bureaucrats’ overreach in making declarations — calling them mandates, but treating them as law. According to Rosendale, those practices are nothing more than part and parcel of

“the fear mongering narrative of COVID-19. The CDC has forced Americans to wear masks on commercial flights for two years without legal standing. A mandate is not law, and Congress never passed legislation codifying the CDC’s mask wearing demands.”

And there is science to back up the ending of the air-travel mask requirement: COVID-19 transmission on airplanes is unlikely due to the ventilation systems. These systems not only mix outdoor air with recycled air via HEPA filters, but they limit air flow between rows – a key reason behind the lack of connection between outbreaks and commercial air travel. According to an article in The Journal of the American Medical Association,

“The risk of contracting COVID-19 during air travel is low. Despite substantial numbers of travelers, the number of suspected and confirmed cases of in-flight COVID-19 transmission between passengers around the world appears small.”

Confirming this view is Sebastian Hoehl, a researcher at the Institute for Medical Virology at Goethe University Frankfurt in Germany. “An airplane cabin is probably one of the most secure conditions you can be in,” he noted.

Given the above information, it is clearly time to end the unwarranted and unscientific policy of mandating masks in airports and airplanes especially since the mandates have ended in virtually all other public places. If you’d like to be sure they do. . . .

Take ACTION: Please click HERE to contact your U.S. Representative and let him/her know how you feel about this. Also, please click HERE to let U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi know she should allow a vote on the measure.

U.S. Senator Paul seems to truly be the hero in this fight for “following the science” and for ending government overreach. Early last week, he introduced a pertinent amendment, a “separation of powers” so to speak, that would eliminate Dr. Anthony Fauci’s position as the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and replace it with three separate positions effectively limiting its power.

“We’ve learned a lot over the past two years, but one lesson in particular is that no one person should be deemed “dictator-in-chief.” No one person should have unilateral authority to make decisions for millions of Americans,” said Dr. Paul, a physician. “To ensure that ineffective, unscientific lockdowns and mandates are never foisted on the American people ever again, I’ve  introduced this amendment . . .This will create accountability and oversight into a taxpayer-funded position that has largely abused its power, and has been responsible for many failures and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

For more information, click HERE.

On January 26th, various news outlets reported that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who was appointed in 1994, planned to announce his retirement. This announcement was followed by multiple reports suggesting that Justice Breyer may have been ushered out by political activists/strategists within the Democratic Party. One report by FoxNews.com claimed that “groups such as Black Lives Matter and Women’s March launched an effort calling for the justice’s retirement.”

With the midterm elections just eight months away and a “red wave” predicted, time was of the essence. U.S. Senate Democrats could not afford to wait to fill the seat occupied by the oldest liberal member of the Court, even if that meant ushering Breyer out before he was ready to go.

Last Friday, President Joe Biden nominated federal appeals court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to fill Breyer’s seat. According to background information provided by the White House, Judge Jackson, who currently serves as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, was born in Washington, D.C. and grew up in Miami, Florida. She earned a BA from Harvard University in 1993 (magna cum laude), and then attended Harvard Law School, graduating cum laude in 1996. Judge Jackson clerked for a variety of judges after earning her JD, and in 1999 clerked for Justice Breyer. She worked in private practice and then as a public defender.

President Barack Obama nominated Judge Jackson as vice chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 2009. She was confirmed unanimously for that position by the U.S. Senate in 2010 and served there until she was nominated by President Obama for a position on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She was again confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2013. Judge Jackson served on the District Court until 2021, when President Joe Biden nominated her for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The U.S. Senate again confirmed her appointment in 2021 by a 53-44 vote with three Republicans joining all 50 Democrats voting “yea:” Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Judge Jackson is currently visiting Senators as she begins the interview process for the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will commence confirmation hearings. If she is confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Judge Jackson would be the second youngest justice on the court—behind Justice Amy Coney Barrett—and the first Black woman to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Of course, President Biden publicly and proudly announced to the nation that the race and gender of his nominee were pre-qualifying conditions for his consideration. (White males need not apply.)

So, what about her judicial philosophy about the U.S. Constitution, the sanctity of life and religious freedom? Well, according to an article by law professor Jonathan Turley,

What is most notable of the statements of support for Judge Jackson is how little is said about her judicial philosophy or approach to the law. The fact is that we have a comparably thin record of opinions in comparison to recent nominees. While she obviously has opinions as a district court judge, there are few opinions that shed light on her judicial philosophy. That is not surprising for a trial judge who issues hundreds of insular decisions on trial issues or outcomes. This is not about the years of experience on the bench, which I have repeatedly noted is a great strength in the nomination. It simply means that we have fewer opinions offering substantive insights into her approach to legal interpretation. The question is whether we will learn substantially more in this confirmation.

We can hope that the confirmation hearings for Judge Jackson, which are scheduled for March 21 through 24, will flesh out more about her views on key issues and her judicial philosophy.

Kelly Shackelford, President, CEO, and Chief Counsel for First Liberty Institute has a different perspective. He isn’t waiting to sound the alarm:

In nominating Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Biden is selecting a judicial activist for the Supreme Court. Her record from the beginning of her career shows hostility to religious liberty, free speech, and other constitutional rights. The American people do not want a liberal extremist on the Supreme Court. If confirmed, Judge Jackson’s judicial activism will place the constitutional rights of all Americans in jeopardy.

Other concerns about Judge Jackson’s positions have been raised by our friends at Family Research Council and Family Policy Alliance.

In the aftermath of the events of January 6, 2021, the narrative is becoming more and more fixed. Simply stated, it claims that the vast majority of Americans who voted for Trump were gun-waving, white supremacist, insurrectionist, Christian nationalists, who need to be marginalized, if not purged from society. For many reasons, we need to continue to challenge that narrative. And recent world events involving Russia, China, and Canada provide a perfect opportunity to push back against that misleading and caricatured narrative.

To be clear, having voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, I do not want him to run again in 2024. And I am sympathetic to the argument that, in many ways, did Trump more harm than good, especially in his post-election behavior and in the damage that was done to our Christian witness when he looked to him as some kind of political savior. (I know that strong Trump supporters find this perspective utterly outrageous, but that’s a battle I am not here to fight.)

But the purpose of this article is not to offer a retrospective analysis of the Trump presidency. Rather, it is to respond to those who cannot possibly understand how God-fearing, Bible-loving, morality-espousing people could vote for Trump. We actually had some very good reasons.

Let’s start with the recent events in Canada and Prime Minister’s invoking of the Emergencies Act in an attempt to crush the Freedom Convoy protesters. According to reports, he “invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time in the country’s history to crack down on protests against his vaccine mandate — just days after the Biden administration urged him to use ‘federal powers.’”

How much of this came directly from President Biden? Only those involved know for sure.

But if true, an obvious question arises: Could you imagine the Trump administration encouraging this kind of extreme crackdown against freedom-loving, peaceful protesters? Could you imagine Trump telling Trudeau, “Yeah, you really need to crush this resistance”?

I think not.

Yet, when it came to international policy and America’s role in the world, those of us who voted for Trump felt far more confident in his leadership than the leadership of Biden. Does this make us violent white supremacists? Or, put another way, when it came to the massive implications of our international policies, was there no justifiable reason to vote for Trump?

As for Russia, while Trump’s critics claimed that he was either too friendly with Putin or actually admired him, others saw things quite differently.

Writing for the Jewish Press on July 24, 2018, Daniel Greenfield claimed that, “Trump Stood Up to Putin, Obama Appeased Him.”

He wrote, “The architects of Obama’s appeasement of Putin have been some of the most militant voices denouncing Trump. . . . Instead President Trump has steadily reversed Obama’s tide of concessions to Putin.”

He continued, “The media is outraged over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But when that happened, Ukraine asked for weapons and the only aid that Obama offered their country was MREs. It took months for Obama to come through with boots and tires. Meanwhile Trump has delivered actual weapons.

“Why did Obama refuse to provide Ukraine with weapons? According to senior officials, to avoid antagonizing Moscow. Trump isn’t afraid of Russia. Obama however was shaking in his loafers.

“While Trump approved anti-tank missiles for Ukraine, Obama slow-walked shipments of boots, putting them on trucks instead of planes so that they took months to arrive, so as not to upset the Russians. Meanwhile the Trump administration cut the red tape by dipping into its own European stockpiles.

“In the time it took Obama to ship boots to Ukraine, Trump shipped Javelin missiles.”

And he closed with this: “Unlike Obama, President Trump sold weapons to Ukraine. Unlike Obama, he bombed Assad and took on Russian mercenaries. Unlike Obama, he provided Poland with working Patriot missiles. Unlike Obama, he didn’t base his foreign policy around fearing to offend Moscow. Unlike Obama, he stood up to Russia.”

The fact is that many of us who voted for Trump felt that he would do a better job of standing up to the world’s strongmen than Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden would do. (For a relevant Twitter poll, see here.)

As for China, allow me to share two personal anecdotes. While in Australia in early 2020, shortly before the COVID travel restrictions, I was picked up at the airport by a Chinese national who was now an Australian citizen.

When I asked him for his views on Chinese President Xi, he told me plainly that he thought he was dangerous. When I asked him for his views on President Trump, he said, “He’s a hero.”

In fact, a colleague of mine who has spent almost all his adult life living and working in China, and who is well-connected to the underground Chinese church, told me that every Christian he knew in China was praying fervently for the reelection of Trump. And when Trump lost, many of them wept.

More broadly, a Bing search for the words how Trump stood up to China (not in quotes) yields pages of articles and videos with headlines like this: “It Takes a Trump to Stand Up to China” (The Hill, December 6, 2016); and “Finally, a President Stands Up to China” (Townhall, August 28, 2019).

To be sure, Trump had more than his share of critics when it came to his Chinese policies, with CNN claiming in July 2020 that, “Trump blasts Beijing in public, but privately Trump org imports tons of Chinese goods.”

But the fact remains that America just competed in the Beijing Olympics, with our athletes being urged not to protest and our official diplomatic protest seeming quite tepid, even with its reference to China’s “ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity.”

Really now, if we truly believed that China was guilty of “ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity” shouldn’t we rather boycott the Olympics? Why not put teeth in our words?

Obviously, I cannot imagine the pressures President Biden is under, and the purpose of this article is not to throw stones at him. (How many Biden-bashing articles have I written?) And, to repeat, I do not want to Trump to run again in 2024 for quite a few reasons.

I’m simply reminding those who broad-brush and smear all of us who voted for Trump that international policies were a major consideration for many of us, with those policies potentially affecting hundreds of millions of lives. (And I’ve not said a word here about our policies with Iran.)

That is hardly a matter of white supremacy or dangerous Christian nationalism. This is matter of worldwide humanitarian concern.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

*Reader Discretion Advised*

Who’d a thunk there was any connection between Joe Biden’s uber-creepy new nuclear waste disposal expert Sam Brinton and Illinois State Representative Sam Yingling (D-Round Lake Beach) other than their first names? As it happens, there is. But first some background on the creepy Sam Brinton who was recently appointed “deputy assistant secretary of spent fuel and waste disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy for the U.S. Department of Energy” by the transphiliac Biden administration that hasn’t yet met a sexual perversion it didn’t love.

Brinton is a 34-year-old “gender non-binary” person who demonstrates his non-binariness by combining men’s and women’s clothing—thereby reflecting the binariness of his non-binary identity.

Brinton first identified as “gay,” but now his immutable “sexual orientation” has changed, and he—er, I mean “they”—identify as bisexual. He’s also into kink as he shared at a sex talk he gave at Rensellaer Polytechnic Institute in 2017:

[Brinton] left us with countless anecdotes, like how he enjoys tying up his significant other like a table, and eating his dinner on him while he watches Star Trek. Upon being asked about how long he knew he was into kink, he explained that it wasn’t necessarily from birth, but that his kinks manifested in nonsexual ways. Once he started having sex, he got bored with the idea that he couldn’t control the whole experience, which led him to the idea of domination. He also expanded on his experiences with pup play, the differences between kinks and fetishes, and how to safely choke one’s partner.

We then moved onto demonstrations. Brinton taught us about bondage, starting with wrist restraints and ending with harnesses. … He also passed out ropes to the audience and encouraged us to practice on each other.

When the demonstrations ended, he invited us to come play with his toys or talk to him more. The entire audience went up to the stage, and Brinton graciously explained the purpose and proper usage of each toy. He even demonstrated the use of a carbon fiber rod on those who were interested, and the marks he left on my arm lasted for a few days. He told us more stories, some about working in Washington, D.C., the few times he helped Michelle Obama pick out shoes, his efforts to end conversion therapy, and his experiences as a dominatrix.

While Brinton “completed a dual Master of Science degree program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in nuclear engineering and the technology and policy program,” he is better known—or, rather, infamous for—his nationwide crusade to make what he deceitfully calls “conversion therapy” illegal. So fanatically committed is Brinton to this crusade that he sashays in stilettos all about the country lying about it.

Brinton has claimed that he was a victim of torture via “conversion therapy”—the term those tricksy homosexual activists prefer—but his allegations suffer from shape-shifting and lack of proof.

For example, in 2010 Brinton alleged that just before seventh grade, he was sent to “conversion therapy” where his hands were tied down and “blocks of ice were placed” on his hands while pictures of men holding hands “were shown” to him.

By 2014 when he testified before the U.N.’s Committee on Torture, his story (and delivery) had changed. He still claimed that his hands were tied down and blocks of ice were placed on them, but he wasn’t shown pictures of men holding hands. Oh, no, in this incarnation of his story he was shown “erotic pictures of men.” Additionally, he claimed the torturous therapy occurred when he was ten years old.

When he testified before the U.N. committee at age 26, he was choking back faux-tears even though he’d been telling this story publicly for years. But four years earlier when he was 22, no tears, not a voice quiver to be heard.

Depending on the context, Brinton has alleged that he was either 10 or 12, when he was tortured by “a doctor,” or “not a doctor,” or a “religious therapist,” or a “licensed psychotherapist.” And at various points, he has claimed he was in this torturous therapy for “two to three years,” and yet he says he cannot recall the name of this therapist.

In addition to painful ice treatment, Brinton claims copper heating coils were wrapped around his hands and the heat turned on, “tiny needles” were “stuck into” his fingers, and that he received “electric shocks” by the nameless therapist. Even homosexuals doubt his story.

Btw, this kind of therapy is accurately called “aversion therapy”—not conversion therapy. And no licensed therapists do it on anyone, let alone children.

Talk therapy that seeks to uncover reasons for disordered feelings and dysfunctional behaviors is called counseling.

Brinton also claims that prior to torture therapy, he was taken to the emergency room seven times from beatings by his father that—Brinton claims—his parents said were from accidental falls. If that happened, surely there would be records of his emergency room visits.

Brinton squealed his delight about this appointment:

I’ll even be (to my knowledge) the first gender fluid person in federal government leadership. … You cannot fathom how excited I am. … so so so excited.

While the crossdressing, glittery, ruby stiletto-wearing Brinton squeals about his new appointment, the oppressive regime in China can see our soft bellies exposed for the death stroke.

What Brinton will do with our nuclear waste is far less important than what he’s doing and has done to our broken children living and moving and having their being in a sea of corruption and confusion.

Kinda makes sense that our prevaricating president would appoint a prevaricator to a high-level government post. #BirdsOfAFeather

And this brings us to Sam Yingling’s connection to Sam Brinton. Yingling is a leftwing religious bigot who calls theologically orthodox Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox beliefs about homosexuality “bigotry.” He’s also a staunch advocate for the non-existent moral and constitutional “right” of mothers to have their offspring killed.

And now Yingling seeks to further the anti-autonomy/anti-choice efforts of hoaxster Sam Brinton by proposing a bill (HB 5162) that would prevent any state money from going to organizations that help people sort out the possible reasons for their homoerotic attractions and gender confusion.

If passed, Yingling’s bill, which just yesterday passed out of committee by a vote of 5 to 3, will do the following:

Provides that the State shall not expend or invest any public funds in any organization, nonprofit organization, religious organization, or any other entity that performs conversion therapy. Provides that any public funds owed by the State to an organization performing conversion therapy shall be withheld from such organization, and any contract between the State and that organization shall be void.

The bill doesn’t define “conversion therapy,” but presumably, Yingling will define it in such a way that prevents state money from going to any entity that may help clients construct a sexual or gender identity consistent with their conservative beliefs and values. Only counseling that helps clients construct an identity consistent with leftist beliefs and values about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation will receive state funds.

In other words, state funds will be used only to affirm leftist assumptions. So much for self-determination and choice.

And to heck with children, teens, and adults whose same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria are symptoms of molestation and trauma or result from peer or social media influence.

Professionals will remain able to access state funds to help gender dysphoric persons reject their unwanted bodies but will not be able to access state funds to help gender dysphoric persons reject their unwanted feelings—not even if that’s the path the client seeks to pursue.

Yep, just six degrees of separation between creepy hoaxster Sam Brinton, expert in waste, and Sam Yingling, supporter of human slaughter and post-birth harm to children.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state representative to ask him or her to vote “NO” to HB 5162. Urge them to reject religious bigotry and state-sanctioned discrimination.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Six-Degrees-of-Separation-Between-Hoaxster-Brinton-and-Yingling.mp3

Conservatives have questioned the legitimacy of masking and the mask mandates since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now it would appear that there are politicians in several Democratic-controlled states who agree with their conservative counterparts. Most will be ending the mandates within the next several weeks. Why they have changed their position is not entirely apparent, but we have an idea.  

States that have removed or changed their regulations – the most liberal states in the nation – include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. 

Illinois’ Governor JB Pritzker announced that the mask mandate for most public places in Illinois would end February 28th. This policy change does not include schools, health clinics, or public transportation. But school masking may also end in Illinois despite Pritzker’s objections. In a recent court decision, Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge Raylene DeWitte Gricshow ruled to strike down the mask mandate in 150 school districts involved in the suit. Governor Pritzker has asked that the Attorney General to immediately appeal the decision.

Although the governor seemingly refuses to let go of the mandates over schools, he and other Democratic governors are starting to loosen their grip over other COVID regulations. 

A recent poll conducted by Monmouth University found that the support for mandated vaccines dropped from 53 percent of those polled to 43 percent, and support for mask mandates dropped from 63 percent to 52 percent. In another poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, findings showed that 70 percent of the Americans polled agreed that “it’s time we accept COVID is here to stay, and we just need to get on with our lives.” It appears that the political climate is no longer accepting the mandates and tyrannical authority that has been exercised within the blue states.  

It is also possible that the recent protests worldwide have concerned the politicians. Canada’s Trucker Freedom Convoy protest is protesting mask and vaccine mandates and is closing down bridges, blocking travel, and slowing down the supply chain. The truckers in the United States are planning a similar protest convoy starting in March.

As a result of the polls and convoy protests, politicians are concerned about the upcoming midterm elections and their ability to appeal to the masses who have become weary of COVID and the mandates. However, because “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” it is doubtful that these leftist politicians are willing to give up their power quickly, as is evident in Governor Pritzker’s unwillingness to remove the mandates from school children.

The dismissal of the mandates is also only being done at state levels. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) is still unwilling to remove the recommendations, stating that hospitalizations remain high. President Joe Biden is still trying to enforce various mandates. On Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) told host Maria Bartiromo that he would introduce legislation in the U.S. Senate to end President Biden’s Declaration of Emergency and stop the Medicare Vaccine Mandate on healthcare workers. Marshall went on to say that the mandates are “about power, it’s about control.” Politicians rarely give up power and control easily. Therefore, the very fact that Democrat-controlled states are willing to let go of mandates without a fight is very telling. Perhaps they see the writing on the wall.

However, voters must remain persistent in assuring that they are not misled by politicians who want to appear as though they have a conciliatory nature. Leftists may sway less informed voters by convincing them that they are willing to modify mandates.

Take ACTION: Although we should be hopeful that more states will dismiss mask mandates, we should remain vigilant. We must ensure that leftists are not trying to influence elections through policy changes that are only meant to temporarily pacify angry voters. Please call your state and federal representatives and ask them to end the mask mandates in Illinois schools in all districts, also voice your support for ending the federal declaration of emergency and all forced mandates. Continue to stay informed as we approach the midterm elections. 

We are all familiar with the expressions, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” or, “A stitch in time saves nine,” meaning it is wise to catch a problem early, while it is small and manageable, rather than to wait until it has grown and become a serious threat.  We understand this with things like weeds in our garden or cancer.  But somehow, we neglect it in the arena of politics.

James Madison lamented that Americans waited until a situation became a crisis before they acted, but I expect it is not only Americans who have that problem. It is people in general. Politics are so wide ranging, and solutions seemingly beyond the reach of the individual, most people simply throw up their hands and hope for the best. This must change for those of us who love what made America the greatest and freest nation ever!

If you are at all aware of what is going on in America, you know radical changes are occurring. This nation was founded on the novel idea that if people are adequately taught in Christian virtues and self-disciplined, they can govern themselves. America is the only, or at least best, example in human history of a self-governing nation! Abraham Lincoln noted in his famous “Gettysburg Address” that we have a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  The point being that, as the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution states, “We the People” are the government and those we send to our state and national capitals are our servants, not our masters.  With the events of the last several years it is clear that many of those we have sent to do our will now see themselves as rulers, not servants.  President Joe Biden betrayed his own personal ambition when he commented publicly regarding Georgia gubernatorial candidate, Stacey Abrams, that if the Democrat Party had many more like her, “We could rule the world!”

No, Mr. Biden, our Constitution does not make politicians rulers!  It makes them servants!  Any American politician who establishes himself as a “ruler” is guilty of insurrection!

Good and wise leaders do not exacerbate fears or exploit them to increase their own personal power, but rather seek to calm the public in times of crisis.  Yet day after day our political and cultural leaders ignite new fires and then throw gasoline on them to arouse as much panic as possible.  Sweep aside the rhetoric and anyone can see that while the pandemic has tragically taken many lives, it has not done nearly as much damage to America as the rhetoric and fearmongering.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died in wars to enable us to be free to live according to our own consciences, desires, and abilities, but we are now being led down a path toward submission, even tyranny, ironically in the name of “saving lives!”  However, virtually everything we have heard from the media and government over the last eighteen months has proven to be either inaccurate or outright lies! One mandate after another is getting Americans used to the idea that “they” are our masters, and we must obey! This must be resisted!

Should we be concerned that tyrants might walk the halls of Congress or other institutions of power in the United States?  Well, consider that Joseph Stalin studied religion as a young man, and Adolf Hitler wanted to be an artist.  Basher al-Assad, the butcher of Syria, studied medicine. From these examples we understand that tyrants’ personal ambitions and brutality are generally not known until it is too late to stop them.

The adage, “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” reminds us that under no circumstance can we allow individuals or small groups to gain too much power. Do we have a Hitler or Stalin walking in our midst? Do we really wish to find out? By the time we figure it out it will be too late! At times like this we are reminded of the thoughts of patriot Patrick Henry who notably said, “is life so dear and peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!” He also noted that “the Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” How prescient he was!

For that reason, we must act now to prevent any person or any group from amassing such political powers. If multiplied thousands of Americans went to their deaths on the battle fields of Europe and the South Pacific to ensure our liberties, then we must not shirk our responsibility to stand for freedom, regardless of the personal or national cost.

We were told in panicked tones that COVID-19 would take millions of lives in America, and that if we wore masks for two weeks it would flatten the curve and put us on a course to defeat it. Here we are, going on two years since the virus showed up and neither of those predictions were accurate. Such proclamations were, in fact, merely a pretext for amassing power to Washington. Sadly, a precise accounting of deaths appears impossible as the government incentivized listing any death where COVID-19 was present a COVID death, even if COVID was not the actual cause of death.  And we have myriad anecdotal reports of people dying who were not infected at all yet were reported as COVID related deaths. We understand that “the first victim of war is truth.” And, if you are not seeing it, understand that we are in, as some have pointed out, a “cold civil war.”

Actor Michael Douglas in a video made not long ago noted that our political system has been “hijacked” to “ensure that those with power keep it.”

Truer words have not been spoken, and if noble and patriotic citizens do not stand up, speak up and act, it may soon be too late.

There is a new poll from Rasmussen Reports that is flat-out scary. First, here is a finding that probably won’t surprise you. Americans are split evenly on President Biden’s vaccine mandate.   Roughly half (48 percent) of voters favor President Joe Biden’s plan to impose a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on employees of large companies. (The U.S. Supreme Court just declared this unconstitutional.)  The same percentage of voters oppose this.

Another split concerns Dr. Anthony Fauci. Forty-five percent (45 percent) view Dr. Fauci favorably, while Forty-eight percent (48 percent) have an unfavorable impression of him.

Nearly 6 out of 10 voters (58 percent) would oppose fining Americans who do not choose to get the COVID vaccine. However, the poll contains a very disturbing mindset in the deeper numbers among Democrats.

• Fifty-nine percent (59 percent) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens always remain confined to their homes, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. (This is opposed by 61 percent of all those surveyed.)

• Nearly half (48 percent) of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or online or digital publications. (Overall, this anti-free speech idea is supported by only 27 percent of those surveyed.)

• Forty-five percent (45 percent) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live at designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. In other words, half of Democrat voters support COVID detention camps! (Overall, this is opposed by 71 percent of all voters.)

• While 66 percent of all voters oppose governmental tracking of the unvaccinated, 47 percent of Democrats favor a government tracking program for those who won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine.

• Twenty-nine percent (29 percent) of Democratic voters support temporarily removing parents’ custody of their children if they refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

A near majority of the Democrat party, and in my view the mainstream media which shills for the DNC daily, is moving dangerously toward far-left totalitarianism under the cover of the COVID pandemic. President Biden’s strongest supporters are the most likely to support the harshest punishments of those who question the COVID narrative.

The poll didn’t ask this, but I would bet that close to 90 percent of those in favor of these ruthless steps would falsely claim that they believe in “tolerance.”

The poll was conducted on Jan 5, a time when the 91 percent less fatal Omicron variant was (and still is) upon us. Many scientists believe that the COVID virus is following the paths of other viruses by becoming more transmissible but weaker. They also believe that this mass Omicron infection, which is impacting both the vaccinated and unvaccinated, will boost national immunity. Historically, most pandemics of this kind last about two years.

Like nearly every other aspect of Scripture, the birth of Jesus, the Messiah, has been questioned by theologians and supposed scholars. One famous scholar, Raymond Brown, states that Luke’s information is dubious on almost every score.^[1] This means that God was not able to communicate the basic historical facts regarding the birth of the Son of God. Is this how we want to start the story of Jesus – as if we are just trying to make things up, like a Joe Biden press conference? We certainly can have confidence in God’s Word even when we cannot line everything up with “secular” histories or the opinions of men.

In the first part of the 20^th century, when there was a great assault against the Christian faith, the Lord, by His grace, raised up J. Gresham Machen as a very thoughtful defender of God’s truth.

In 1930, Machen’s book, The Virgin Birth of Christ, was published. It is considered one of the most thorough and scholarly treatments of the subject. You can read the book free HERE.

Both Luke and Matthew record the birth of Jesus in a different but harmonious way. Looking at the details, we can see that Luke and Matthew alternate in presenting the full story of our Messiah’s coming.

Based on Machen’s excellent thought, here is a compilation of the full birth story as given by Matthew and Luke.[2]

Read through this account with your family as we celebrate the coming of our Lord and Savior!

1. 1. Annunciation to Zacharias – Luke 1:5-24
   2. Annunciation to Mary – Luke 1:26-38
   3. Visit of Mary to Elizabeth – Luke 1:39-55
   4. Return of Mary to Nazareth – Luke 1:56
   5. Discovery of her condition – Matthew 1:18-19
   6. Annunciation to Joseph – Matthew 1:20-23
   7. Marriage of Joseph and Mary – Matthew 1:24-25
   8. Journey to Bethlehem because of the census – Luke 2:1-5
   9. Birth of Jesus – Luke 2:6-7
   10. Visit of the Shepherds – Luke 2:8-20
   11. Circumcision at Bethlehem at 8 days – Luke 2:21
   12. Presentation in the temple at 40 days – Luke 2:22-38
   13. 13 Return to Bethlehem – Not explicitly stated
   14. Visit of the magi – Matthew 2:1-12
   15. Flight to Egypt – Matthew 2:13-18
   16. Return to Nazareth – Matthew 2:19-23 and Luke 2:39-40

^[1] Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 413.

[2] Compiled by P. Calvin Lindstrom following the analysis of J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ, 197. Scripture quotations from the NKJV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learn MORE:

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

Is the Biden administration governing in a way that takes into consideration the will of the American people? Based on his plummeting poll numbers and crude anti-Biden chants filling sports stadiums, the answer would seem to be no.

The recent defeat of the left at the polls in Virginia and elsewhere was a reminder of the pushback of “we the people.”

Some leftist pundits said Terry McAuliffe lost his Virginia gubernatorial campaign in 2021 because he didn’t campaign to the left enough. Others remarked it was the alleged “white supremacist” factor that gave conservatives the victory. Of course, they say this while ignoring the victory of the lieutenant governor-elect in Virginia, Winsome Sears. She is the first black person to win that position in that state.

[That] election was a reminder of the genius of the founding fathers to build into the system the opportunity for “we the people” to correct earlier political mistakes.

Conservative columnist Star Parker made a comment about this principle once in a television  interview with D. James Kennedy Ministries. She noted,

“What I’ve learned about this whole political arena is that the words of President Garfield are really true.  If you have recklessness and corruption in government, it’s because you tolerate it. Because of the beauty of the founding, they give us elections every two years, every four years, and every six years. So, in two years, we get to [elect Congress members] again; every four years, we get the president again; and every six years we get to determine who’s going to be our senate representation.”

Parker made this remark right after Biden’s victory about a year ago. She added,

“So, I’m just staying encouraged, because this moment in our history is only this moment in our history. History is long, and history is after us, but it’s also before us….We are now being tested…and it’s uncomfortable to have to get up and actually engage. But we’re called to do that. And we have that chance every two years, every four years, and every six years.”

Our political developments are a reminder of the American experiment created by the settlers and then the founders of America.

What is America in a nutshell? It is an experiment in self-government under God.

Some people want to remove the self-government part—but then they ultimately crown the government God. That scenario violates both parts of the phrase: self-government under God.

Others want to remove the God-part of the phrase. But when we have government without God, even self-government (without God), it all tends to break down because of the inherent sinfulness of humanity. John Adams famously said,

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

America’s founders designed things in such a way that we would be a self-governing people. The more people govern themselves the less outward government they need. The less they govern themselves, the more outward government is needed.

Knowing that we are all accountable before God, our founders understood the need for keeping one’s passions in check. As Thomas Jefferson noted,

“Indeed I tremble for my country when reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

Self-government under God leads to greater freedom. The converse is true—bigger government under man (not God) constricts our freedom.

Why has America been so blessed—despite all our flaws—lo, these many centuries? I believe that the  first steps to self-government under God in America go back to the positive influence of the Pilgrims. 400 years ago this autumn, the Pilgrims who settled Plymouth held their first Thanksgiving celebration.

Our recent Providence Forum documentary, THE PILGRIMS, makes the simple point that the Pilgrims just wanted to worship God according to their conscience. In pursuing this religious freedom in the New World, they helped cast a long and positive shadow on what would become the future nation.

As the hymn, “America the Beautiful,” points out, “O beautiful for pilgrim feet / Whose stern impassioned stress, / A thoroughfare for freedom beat / Across the wilderness!”

Ronald Reagan once observed,

“Here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights. We the people declared that government is created by the people for their own convenience. Government has no power except those voluntarily granted to it by we the people.”

The founding fathers took and extended the Pilgrims’ concept of liberty under God. Our 40^th president added, “Oh, there have been revolutions before and since ours. But those revolutions simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. Ours was a revolution that changed the very concept of government.” And for that, all Americans should be full of thanksgiving.

This article was originally published at JerryNewcombe.com.

After rejoining a number of controversial United Nations agencies and agreements over the last year, the Biden administration and its allies in Congress are quietly trying to figure out how to bypass federal laws to rejoin a UN agency that has been clouded in scandal and allegations of extremism for decades.

Four years ago, the Trump administration and the Israeli government both announced they would be exiting the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Accusations of anti-Semitism and widespread corruption were among the many concerns cited.

But now, despite what critics describe as continued extremism and ongoing corruption issues, as well as significant communist Chinese influence over the UN’s education agency, there are growing signs that the Biden administration and Israeli authorities are getting ready to overlook all that.

At the Biden administration’s request, lawmakers have even quietly introduced legislation that would allow Washington to sidestep U.S. laws prohibiting funds for the controversial UN agency.

The price tag in terms of tax dollars would be enormous. But critics, analysts, and former senior officials warned that even more significant than the financial cost would be legitimizing the agency and even Beijing’s influence within it.

“I don’t think UNESCO is fixable,” explained Kevin Moley, who served as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs during the previous administration.

Moley, who also worked as U.S. Ambassador to UN organizations in Geneva during the Bush administration, pointed to overwhelming communist Chinese influence in UNESCO and its long track record of undermining American principles as key reasons for concern.

“In the Trump administration, it was Make America Great Again,” Moley told The Epoch Times in a phone interview. “In the Biden administration, it’s HAA—Humiliate America Again.”

“Re-joining UN institutions that habitually take Israel and America to task for unfounded allegations of human rights abuses while condoning the human rights abuses of UN Human Rights Council members such as Russia, Venezuela, China, and Cuba, is the ultimate manifestation of what the late great Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick called the ‘blame America first’ crowd,” the former assistant secretary of state explained. “This crowd has now taken over the U.S. State Department lock, stock, and barrel.”

At least one UNESCO insider argued that a thorough investigation of the UN agency and its leaders by U.S. authorities would be a more sensible plan than sending more than half a billion tax dollars to pay “arrears” to an organization that he said was dominated by ideologues and plagued by never-ending scandals.

Even powerful voices within the foreign-policy establishment have warned against a return to the agency without at least securing some major concessions and reforms. So far, though, it does not appear that any significant concessions are even being sought.

The Backstory

In October of 2017, following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan, the Trump administration gave UNESCO its one-year notification that the U.S. government would be leaving the organization.

Among other concerns, the State Department pointed to the growing amount of taxpayer money supposedly owed to the agency by the United States since the U.S. government stopped paying dues in 2011, as required by statutes passed by Congress and signed by former presidents Bush and Clinton.

The funding was stopped during the Obama administration as a result of federal laws banning U.S. funding for international organizations that accept the “State of Palestine” as a member state prior to a negotiated settlement with Israel.

Current federal law still prohibits U.S. funding for UNESCO. But the Senate Appropriations Committee just introduced legislation that would allow the Biden administration to waive that prohibition if it believes re-joining would promote U.S. interests.

Also behind the U.S. government’s decision to withdraw was what authorities said was the UN agency’s systemic bias against Israel, as well as what the State Department described as the “need for fundamental reform.”

Pointing to murderous dictatorships on the agency’s “human rights” committee and other policies, then-UN Ambassador Nikki Haley at the time said the “extreme politicization” of UNESCO had “become a chronic embarrassment.”

“Just as we said in 1984 when President Reagan withdrew from UNESCO, U.S. taxpayers should no longer be on the hook to pay for policies that are hostile to our values and make a mockery of justice and common sense,” Haley said.

But that was just the tip of the iceberg, insiders and analysts say.

At the time, the UN agency was being led by longtime Communist Party apparatchik Irina Bokova of Bulgaria. Her deep ties to the former Communist regime in Bulgaria, combined with serious allegations of corruption and intrigue during and after her tenure, led to major questions among Western governments about the UN agency’s leadership.

Responding to the U.S. withdrawal, Bokova expressed “profound regret,” calling it a “loss for multilateralism.”

Leading the UN agency alongside Bokova was the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) official Qian Tang, who served as assistant director-general of the agency.

Separately, China’s then-Ambassador to Belgium, Qu Xing, was appointed deputy director-general by Bokova’s successor, French Socialist Party figure Audrey Azoulay.

Their influence over the UN organization—particularly in the field of education—has been immense.

On the heels of the U.S. notice to UNESCO, Israeli authorities followed suit. Blasting UNESCO as “the theater of the absurd,” then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the Trump administration for its “brave and moral decision.”

The Israeli Foreign Ministry announced that government’s withdrawal shortly after Washington, and both governments officially exited at the end of 2018.

With the U.S. and Israeli governments gone, UNESCO continued in its ways under the leadership of French Director General Azoulay, a former culture minister whose tenure at the UN has also been marked by allegations of impropriety.

Diplomats have noticed problems.

Last summer, for example, U.K. Ambassador to UNESCO Matthew Lodge sent a scathing letter to top UNESCO officials expressing concern over “confirmed financial fraud.” Lodge also highlighted efforts by the agency’s leaders to cover up the fraud and avoid informing member states.

Efforts to Rejoin

A number of sources told The Epoch Times that after the Biden administration re-joined several other UN organizations and instruments such as the World Health Organization, the UN Human Rights Council, and the Paris Agreement on climate, it had its eyes on rejoining UNESCO.

A spokesman for the State Department responded to phone calls and e-mails from The Epoch Times with a brief note: “We don’t have anything to announce on UNESCO at this time.”

However, it appears that there are serious efforts behind the scenes to rejoin and pay arrears, complicated by the federal laws banning U.S. funding for organizations that admit the “State of Palestine.”

A statement released by UNESCO said the agency saw “real hope” for a U.S. return, but “the timing and modalities … have yet to be defined.”

UNESCO chief Azoulay was also reportedly in Washington lobbying Biden’s wife and U.S. lawmakers, according to media reports based on an anonymous diplomatic source.

And officials such as former USAID chief and Clinton-era Undersecretary of State J. Brian Atwood are publicly lobbying for the U.S. government re-join.

“Much has changed under UNESCO’s Director General Audrey Azoulay,” Atwood argued in an opinion piece for The Hill last month. “It is long past time for Congress to recognize that the national interests of the United States are best served by participation in international organizations like UNESCO.”

In Israel, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid asked officials to review the issue. In fact, according to media reports citing Israeli officials, Lapid believes leaving UNESCO and other international organizations made Israeli foreign policy less effective.

But critics have expressed grave concerns over ongoing efforts to rejoin the UN agency.

Speaking to The Epoch Times, former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Moley blasted the Biden administration’s State Department and its efforts to re-engage in what he described as out-of-control UN organs such as UNESCO. In fact, he argued that this behavior undermined U.S. interests.

UNESCO is too far gone and cannot be fixed anyway, he added, pointing to large swaths of its policy-making that “have largely been taken over by the CCP and its allies.” These concerns have existed for decades.

In addition to being bad for America, Ambassador Moley also argued that re-joining the UN agency would be “another slap in the face to our only democratic ally in the Middle East.”

One key problem, he argued, is that the State Department is under the “complete control” of officials whose “first response to virtually anything is to apologize for America instead of standing up for our values, our Constitution, and our people.”

The Biden administration is a representation of this, and is “full of the most anti-American, socialist” forces, he added.

Another one of Moley’s major concerns is the attitude from Obama and Biden on down regarding the threat from the CCP.

Biden has even joked about it recently. “China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man,” he said in May 2019 on the campaign trail, ridiculing the idea that the CCP poses a serious threat to the United States.

Moley’s Obama-era predecessor as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, Bathsheba Crocker, was even quoted in the state-run newspaper China Daily saying she was “particularly pleased” to see China taking more responsibility in the UN.

China’s Influence

As The Epoch Times reported in May of 2020, the CCP now dominates large segments of the UN and its specialized agencies, with the CCP-dominated G77 (Group of 77) Plus China alliance holding a super-majority in the General Assembly.

UNESCO is no exception, and in fact, may be worse, critics say.

CCP agent and Deputy Director General Qu, who was appointed with no public “recruitment process” to speak of as required under the agency’s rules, is now leading the “Strategic Transformation” of UNESCO, according to the agency.

An insider at UNESCO who cannot be named due to the threat of repercussions for speaking frankly told The Epoch Times that Qu is working on the “most sensitive part” of Azoulay’s mandate. This allows the CCP to craft the UN agency in its own mold in a way that will endure for many years to come, the insider said.

“Today UNESCO is a lawless organization, a toxic political arena, with reduced to the minimum activities that should normally be at the heart of its action,” the source told The Epoch Times on condition of anonymity. “Incompetent leaders sold out to China.”

This is not a new phenomenon. During the previous administration of Bokova, who was trained in Moscow during the Soviet era and served as a senior official in the former Communist regime in Bulgaria, the UN agency was also closely connected to Beijing and other communist power centers—even while the U.S. government was a member.

The CCP now has the second-highest number of world heritage sites, and it is seeking to move key UNESCO education offices to China.

In 2017, long before the U.S. left, the CCP also signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” with UNESCO agreeing to increase cooperation on Beijing’s controversial “Belt and Road” project. Bokova praised the CCP for its initiatives that have “set good examples for the international community,” CCP media reported.

Under Bokova’s administration, CCP member Qian Ting—a former official with the CCP’s “Education Ministry”—served as assistant director-general for UNESCO.

Qian was even made “officer-in-charge” of the Bureau of Strategic Planning, giving the CCP wide influence in the path charted by the UN agency.

Perhaps even more significantly, Qian also led the UN’s “Education 2030” agenda, a critical component of the UN “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) also known as Agenda 2030.

Top UN officials have described the global agenda as the “master plan for humanity” and even the global “Declaration of Interdependence.”

As she was seeking to become Secretary General of the broader UN, Bokova rewarded Xi Jinping’s wife with the title “Special Envoy” for female education.

“You are an immense role model for millions of young girls in China and beyond,” Bokova declared when giving the CCP dictator’s wife the prestigious title.

On her way out from UNESCO, it was common knowledge among senior officials there that Bokova was hoping Qian would take her place. The CCP member was formally nominated for the top UNESCO post by the CCP, which is hoping to secure the agency’s director-general position when Azoulay’s term ends.

Unlike diplomats from other countries, who promise to work on behalf of international organizations rather than national interests while in UN agencies, CCP leaders have publicly declared that Chinese nationals in the UN must obey party orders. Former Interpol chief Meng Hongwei was even arrested by the CCP for, among other crimes, disobeying party orders while at the helm of the global policing agency.

Countering CCP, or Legitimizing and Funding its Agenda?

A number of influential voices from the foreign-policy establishment have proposed that the U.S. government rejoin UNESCO if only to counter CCP influence, which was well-established in the agency long before the Trump administration’s exit.

Kristen Cordell of the Council on Foreign Relations, an internationalist powerhouse, for example, cited the CCP’s influence in UNESCO as a key reason for Biden to rejoin in exchange for some concessions.

Critics ridiculed the idea, however.

Ambassador Moley, for instance, lambasted the notion that U.S. membership would rein in the CCP there as “wishful thinking.”

“As we have experienced in engaging with UN organizations—people think we have a veto—we are simply one of 193 members,” Moley said. “China has its useful idiots, including among the more than 130 governments in the G77 Plus China who make up most of the UN’s members.”

“As long as bribery, coercion, and blackmail are predominant tools of Chinese foreign policy, it is very unlikely that we can prevail in a UN forum such as UNESCO with our one vote,” he added.

Emphasizing the seriousness of the matter, Moley called the CCP “our enemy” and “the greatest existential threat to our republic since 1860.”

The insider from UNESCO similarly balked at the idea that re-joining the UN agency would give the U.S. government the ability to counter the CCP.

“If President Biden decides to return to UNESCO, it will be a good gesture towards China, which will please Beijing a lot, since it would legitimize its hold on the agency,” the source said. “It will also please all the leftist globalists and will bring nothing but costly nuisance to the U.S. and Israel.”

“In fact, Joe Biden would have more leverage to exert reform pressure at UNESCO by keeping the U.S. out,” the Paris-based diplomatic source added.

The conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation’s International Regulatory Affairs Fellow Brett Schaefer echoed concerns about CCP influence within the UN and its specialized agencies, saying it would be a “mistake” for the U.S. government to rejoin.

“Obviously, everybody should be concerned about Chinese influence in international organizations,” he told The Epoch Times in a phone interview.

“The question I have on this, though, is whether UNESCO is even central to U.S. interests,” Schaefer continued. “The U.S. did not participate and U.S. interests were minimally affected.”

In addition, even when Washington was a member, “UNESCO was pursuing policies that the U.S. did not support and frankly were embarrassments to the organization and its mission and mandate,” added Schaefer.

While countering the CCP is a worthy objective, he also expressed concerns about the large sum American taxpayers would have to hand over to rejoin UNESCO—more than $500 million just in arrears that would then be spent however the agency and its other member states wanted.

Pointing to the United States re-joining under Bush, the Heritage expert said there was already an established precedent for paying arrears in full.

“It’s a windfall that they can use however they want to,” Schaefer said.

That is almost certainly what would happen. “The new administration has made a practice of rejoining organizations such as the World Health Organization and the Human Rights Council without any conditions, so that would be the expectation of other member states, knowing that this administration would like to rejoin,” he added.

UNESCO: Corrupt to the Core?

Aside from the allegations of anti-Semitism and extremism, UNESCO has long been plagued by corruption and politicization scandals at the highest levels.

Leaked minutes from the UNESCO Executive Board revealed that then-U.K. Ambassador to UNESCO Matthew Sudders slammed Bokova for alleged corruption in appointing cronies to aid her ambitions to rise further in the UN.

“As a U.K. civil servant, I have a duty to report all cases of possible or suspected fraud to our investigations department,” Sudders declared. The comments were reportedly made with the full support of his government, which concluded that a “comprehensive external review” was needed.

More recently, under the current UNESCO administration, U.K. Ambassador to UNESCO Matthew Lodge demanded to know why member states were being kept in the dark about “confirmed financial fraud,” unsanctioned misappropriation of funds, and more by top UNESCO leadership.

Even more bizarre were news reports suggesting there may be a link between Azoulay’s troubles and an almost unprecedented late-night intrusion into UNESCO headquarters and IT systems by French government agents.

Reports also suggested that international civil servants in UNESCO chief Azoulay’s office were improperly lobbying for the elimination of a second candidate for director-general of the agency.

UNESCO’s Secretariat, which is overseen by Azoulay, did not acknowledge multiple requests for comment.

But in an e-mail to The Epoch Times, UNESCO General Conference President Altay Cengizer said the allegations of financial fraud raised by Western diplomats should be addressed but were beyond his competence.

Cengizer said he had “no idea” whether French authorities “played a part or not, in securing Member States’ silence about the alleged disregard of the Secretariat of financial and accountability regulations since 2017.”

“When allegations persist for such a long time, I think a clarification by the Secretariat, to set things straight, is the best way to deal with questions of financial irregularity,” Cengizer said.

So far there has been no clarification.

Because UNESCO is hosted in France, he said the “somewhat entangled relationship” between Azoulay and French authorities was to be expected.

“In such cases, one hopes that it would not exceed a certain limit and not endanger several other balances that are innate to an international and intergovernmental organization,” he said, noting that there were “strong reactions” to the “Spying Scandal” involving French officials being allowed into UNESCO headquarters at odd hours.

In the e-mail, Cengizer expressed concern—and has publicly in the past—about the “active lobbying by international civil servants for securing support for the re-election of the incumbent Director General.”

The UNESCO General Conference chief said he did not have details surrounding the mysterious elimination of Azoulay’s rival for leadership at the UN agency, a process that critics said was clouded by corruption.

“However, I think that the Member States should have been informed of such a development,” he added.

While supporters of rejoining UNESCO argue that the corruption and extremism have been cleaned up since the U.S. departure, critics and even people closely associated with the agency say that is not the case.

A Difficult Road Ahead

On both sides of the debate about whether the U.S. government should rejoin UNESCO, there is agreement on one point: If it happens, it will be a complex process.

Writing in the New York Daily News this summer, former National Security Advisor and UN Ambassador John Bolton said it was “incomprehensible” why Biden would seek to resurrect the UNESCO issue—especially since Congress will “certainly reject” funding it.

“Biden would face a massive political struggle without the prospect of any substantive accomplishment,” added Bolton.

In any case, any attempt to rejoin UNESCO would be a “significant mistake,” he said.

“UNESCO has long been among the most politicized UN organizations,” continued Bolton, saying it was an “error” to believe the agency was capable of reform.

Throwing fuel on the fire, UNESCO adopted two resolutions in October blasting Israel and calling on the international community to pressure Jerusalem to stop its “illegal” actions.

Pervasive corruption allegations and CCP influence surrounding UNESCO come amid an escalating scandal over Beijing’s subversion at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which further complicates Biden administration efforts to expand multilateralism.

An independent investigation recently found that IMF chief Kristalina Georgieva, also a Bulgarian with links to Bokova, improperly applied “undue pressure” on World Bank officials to manipulate data. The goal was to put the CCP in a good light in its official report on business climate, the probe concluded.

Top Biden officials including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen publicly expressed concern and vowed to “monitor” the organization. But Georgieva, with ties to Communist forces in Bulgaria and beyond like Bokova, remains at the helm of the IMF.

UNESCO did not respond to phone calls and emails seeking comment.

The international agency is best known for its world heritage site designations, but also plays a major role in the UN’s global education, culture, and science policy.