The Biden administration is warning of impending shortages at Christmas due to supply chain issues. A massive backup of container ships at the Port of Los Angeles is a major contributing factor to this severe problem. Not only are ships waiting long periods to dock, but, when they offload, the containers remain stacked, waiting for truck drivers to arrive to take the shipments to their destinations. Currently, there are approximately 250,000 containers on the docks and 500,000 shipping containers off the coast. President Joe Biden recently announced that the ports would move to 24-hour operations; however, most experts believe that the intervention has come too late and warns that shelves may be empty at Christmas time.

Governor Ron DeSantis (R-Florida) invited shipping companies to bring their goods to Florida in response to the problem. The governor has proposed that companies waiting to dock in California come to one of the 15 seaports in Florida to ease the bottleneck. Florida has invested $250 million in improving their ports and they are now ready to receive ships. Although this may help elevate pressure on the California ports, it may not prevent the shortages. Ports are only one part of the supply chain problem. Another broken link is due to the lack of truck drivers to transport the goods. Even before COVID-19, the country lacked an estimated 60,000 drivers. That deficit has only grown during the pandemic and will make on-time delivery of products for Christmas extremely difficult.

While problems with the supply chain are complex, the Biden administration’s response is most infuriating. White House Chief of Staff, Ronald Klain, retweeted economist Jason Furman who called the problems with the supply chain and inflation a “high class problem.” Additionally, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki defended Klain’s tweet and even went as far as saying that “we’ve made progress in the economy.” It seems the Biden administration is totally out of touch with how both supply problems and inflation impact all Americans. Not only are they out of touch, but they also do not understand the meaning of Christmas.

It is a bit reminiscent of the Dr. Seuss classic How the Grinch Stole Christmas. In the children’s story, the petulant Grinch is irritated that the Who of Whoville joyfully celebrate Christmas and he decides to steal their Christmas. He sneaks into Whoville, taking all their gifts and the food for their table. Like the infamous Grinch, the Biden administration tells us that we too will have no gifts or dinner feast. And like the Grinch, this administration also has missed the point of Christmas.

Instead of bemoaning their loss, the Who of Whoville gathered in unity and joyfully celebrated anyway. Believers should react much in the same way, even if the supply problems and inflation are tremendous. Christmas is not about gifts or food, and we, as Christians, must demonstrate a joyful celebration of everything that Jesus Christ represents. If the gifts under your tree are fewer and the food on the table lighter, do not despair. Start new traditions with your family, make homemade gifts, or donate your time to those in need. Find ways to share the gift of Jesus with family and friends. Christmas isn’t about the things under the tree, but the gift of salvation that God willingly gave two thousand years ago. Let us, even in our time of need, remember the gift of Christ and remind the leftist Grinches that “It came without ribbons! It came without tags! It came without packages, boxes, or bags…Maybe Christmas…doesn’t come from a store. Maybe Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more.” (Dr. Seuss)

Someone I know from California told me recently that he has decided to pull his child out of public school and enroll him instead into a private, Christian school.

Why? Because during some of the Zoom instruction during the coronavirus pandemic, this concerned parent discovered some of the lessons they were trying to foist on his child. In this case, it was the anti-American historical revisionism that disgusted this parent.

Multiply this story many times over, and we are seeing a very important development right now—many parents are finding better ways to educate their children, including home-school and home-school co-ops, than the failing public schools.

But the left is pushing back. Perhaps the most galling thing about this debate is the arrogance of the educrats who think they are the ones who should be responsible for the education of the children—not the parents.

Former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe let the cat out of the bag. The Democrat is currently running for governor again, and he said in a recent debate: “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

Unfortunately, McAuliffe is not alone in these sentiments.

Writing in wnd.com (10/3/21), Art Moore points out that parents are supposedly “not the ‘primary stakeholder’ in their children’s education”—even though they are “important stakeholders.” Who says this? Some left wing nut job on a TicTok video? No, Joe Biden’s education secretary Michael Cordona said this.

What’s more, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) asked the Biden administration to treat concerned parents at school board meetings as essentially domestic terrorists. They write, “Now, we ask that the federal government investigate, intercept, and prevent the current threats and acts of violence against our public school officials through existing statutes, executive authority…to preserve public school infrastructure and campuses.”

They add: “Further, this increasing violence is a clear and present danger to civic participation.”

Apparently, President Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland agrees. He is now claiming that concerned parents protesting at school board meetings are guilty of “domestic terrorism.”

In his End of Day Report (10/5/21), Gary Bauer of American Values responds, “So, let’s get this straight: The radical forces indoctrinating your children are trying to shut you up by utilizing the same agency, the FBI, that the left used to smear Donald Trump with the fake Russia collusion hoax.” He observes that the Biden administration is “turning the FBI loose on soccer moms.” Critics note that Garland has a conflict of interest here. Bauer says:

“His son-in-law is the president of a consulting firm that makes millions of dollars contracting with school boards to push the left’s radical agenda.”

If you look at the videos of the unruly school board meetings, what you see are parents visibly upset that their children are being taught a bunch of lies. They are not resorting to “violence.”

The most prominent areas of curriculum conflict include:

• Critical race theory (CRT), where by definition whites are oppressors and blacks are the oppressed. Little children who have done nothing wrong are being vilified for the color of their skin.

• Historical revisionism, which turns American history on its head. The settlers and founders of America were far from perfect. But they created a nation with unparalleled freedom and prosperity. Now political correctness has turned America’s founders into villains. One can only wonder why those would-be American immigrants trekking through Central America are currently risking their lives to come to this supposedly evil country.

• The dogmatic LGBTQ agenda. Many children (mostly girls) are questioning if they were born in the correct gender. Because of this fad that is sweeping through many of the schools and is being promoted by teachers and the school administrators, many young people are undergoing “irreversible damage” as puberty blockers and even surgery are administered to try and resolve a conflict that usually resolves itself in puberty. The fallout is horrible. Journalist Abigail Shrier wrote a book documenting this dangerous trend—Irreversible Damage.

The schools and teachers unions are acting as if they own the children. They do not. Children are on loan by God to the parents. Indeed, who is responsible for children’s education? Parents or educrats?

Who knows better than the parents what is in the children’s best interest? To whom have the children been given? Hasn’t God given the parents the responsibility of teaching their children, even if they delegate that teaching to others? Traditionally, teachers have been described as “in loco parentis”—acting on behalf of the parents, not against them.

Our current education crisis could actually prove to be a good thing—if we handle it correctly. This could be the time when many Americans seek to rescue their children from leftist and false indoctrination promoted by too many of our public schools.

This article was originally published by JerryNewcombe.com.

An assault has occurred on parental rights within the public school system. Parents have voiced their concerns across the nation about everything from perverted curriculum to forced masking. If any good came from the pandemic, it is that parents have seen what public schools are doing behind closed doors. This revelation should lead parents to remove their children from the grip of the government-run education system.

Here are my top ten reasons to leave public schools:

The Marxist Agenda:

Many parents and grandparents were in school during the Cold War, or just following it, and view Communism as the enemy. However, universities hid a dark secret: Marxist philosophers, economists, and educators were devoted to continuing to teach the theory to the next generation. As the Marxist agenda became more elevated on college campuses in the 1980s and 90s, we were unconcerned. After all, this action only involved a handful of academic elites, right? Wrong. Today the consequences of ignoring the indoctrination of university students are readily apparent in our public schools. Those university elites educated the current teachers, curriculum developers, and administrators that now teach in your child’s school. The ideas of hatred towards capitalism, American exceptionalism, and devotion to humanism have slowly infiltrated public schools, starting with high schools and are moving towards younger students. Now, even kindergarten classes are taught Marxist ideologies.

Critical Race Theory:

CRT is in direct relation to the Marxist theory. As a result, CRT, which started in universities, is now spreading like wildfire across public school systems. Schools across the nation are telling teachers to divide their students by race. Instead of finding common ground and cooperative ways of interaction, students are divided and labeled according to race and ethnicity.

LGBT Agenda:

The LGBT lobby and organizations have forced their agenda into every facet of life, including schools. Girls’ sports are being decimated by male athletes masquerading as females, and neither girls nor boys can assume privacy in their respective bathrooms or locker rooms. Teachers are asking students to “choose” their sexuality and pronoun identifiers. Children are allowed to change their name and gender on school records without parental permission. Schools across the country are forming clubs like the Gay-Straight Alliance, yet denying official status to Bible clubs. The agenda has taken over the public schools to such a degree that parents cannot question the schools’ policies. (Illinois lawmakers passed legislation in 2019 to mandate the teaching of LGBT history in classrooms K-12th grade.)

Explicit Sexual Education:

The LGBT agenda has given birth to explicit sex education programs. In previous generations, kindergarteners were taught about proper touch and “stranger danger.” Now, school programs are teaching about masturbation and sodomy, and even grooming children for pedophilia. The new, approved curriculum in Illinois is entirely lewd. This curriculum includes cartoon-drawn images of acts of hetero and homosexual acts. Children are encouraged to participate in masturbation. Although the Department of Education claims parents can opt-out of the classes, parents will not be able to stop their children’s classmates from sharing the curriculum’s text and pornographic images. (Illinois lawmakers passed legislation earlier this year to require all public schools—including charter schools—to align teaching in grades K-5 on “personal health and safety” with “National Sex Education Standards.)”

Declining Academics:

It should not come as a surprise that academics are declining. As educators push their agendas, there is little time to teach mathematics or reading. In the last year, Illinois raised funding per student to $14,492, one of the highest per-student budgets in the nation. Yet, Illinois students are not succeeding academically. In Illinois and across the country, students are falling behind. The US ranks 38th in the world in math and, according to a recent study by Gallup, deficiencies in reading cost trillions of dollars. Many business owners state that they cannot find entry-level employees with basic skills such as money counting, phone etiquette, or even basic reading abilities. Declining academic achievement is devastating our children and our economy. (Click HERE to view the proficiency scores of the largest school districts in Illinois.)

Lack of Transparency:

The local school board and the state have actively limited transparency. They often refuse to show how funding is being distributed and deny parental involvement in the decision-making process. In January of 2021, the Williamson County Circuit Court ordered the Illinois school board of Herrin District #4 to repay $2.7 million in misused tax funds. The school was taken to court by one taxpayer who noted the misappropriations. Parents could prevent fraud and misappropriations if school boards would issue regular reports on the distribution of funds. Schools also lack transparency regarding the curricula they choose. A group of Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin are circulating a bill requiring schools and teachers to publish a list of materials and all curricula utilized by the school. If approved, schools failing to publish these lists will incur a $15,000 penalty. Transparency of materials and texts is an excellent idea; however, the Department of Education and teacher unions are fighting this bill and any attempt to require transparency.

Impediment of Parental Involvement and Rights:

The governmental system does not respect parents or their rights. During the pandemic, parents discovered the nature of curricula and were outraged at the indoctrination occurring in schools. As a result, parents and grandparents are attending school board meetings in large numbers. Parents have expressed concerns ranging from requests to remove CRT and Marxist curricula to concerns about forced masking. These parents are vocal but have been peaceful, with a few rare exceptions. Even though parents have a right to voice concerns about their children’s education, the local boards and teachers have been defiant. Often school boards have refused to answer questions. Have these board members forgotten that they are elected officials? Regardless, parents have been vilified, doxxed, and faced cancel culture for simply wanting to protect their children. Recent Virginia gubernatorial candidate, Terry McAuliffe (D), stated, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” This statement is a shared opinion held by teachers, unions, and board members across the nation.

Authorization of Greater Federal Control:

A memo from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) was sent to the Biden administration claiming that parents attending school board meetings were a threat to teachers and board members. As a result, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to investigate parents attending school board meetings as domestic terrorists. The federal government’s defamation of parents’ character is just the beginning of bringing the federal government into a more significant role in education. If the elimination of parental control in education occurs, then the states and the federal government can indoctrinate children without interference. Federalization can occur not only through the removal of parental influence, but also through financial control. Politicians such as U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) have long called for the federalization of funding. Complete federalization creates an oversight nightmare. This type of system would likely eliminate all local control within the schools.

Removal of God and Country:

The landmark decision of Engel v. Vitale (1962) removed school-mandated prayer from the classroom. It did not end there. Students have had a constant fight to keep student-led, voluntary prayer and Christian clubs in schools. However, we should be clear that the Left intends this ban to only include prayer to the God of the Bible. At the beginning of the school year, parents in California filed suit after the California State Board of Education unanimously approved a curriculum that included chanting to Aztec gods. These are the same false gods that the people of ancient Mesoamerica worshipped through the practice of human sacrifice. Schools have also removed anything that might resemble patriotism. One teacher, who has now been dismissed, removed the American flag and replaced it with the gay pride flag. Although this teacher was fired, many teachers across the nation are denouncing both God and our country in their classrooms.

Your Children Deserve Better:

The best reason to remove your children from the failing public school system is that they deserve better. The current system is rooted in hatred and indoctrination. Twenty years ago, Christian parents sent their children into the public system to be young evangelists. Today any possibility of that is squelched before the child even leaves the primary grades. Before they reach middle school, they will have already seen lewd images and been given ample opportunity to denounce all values their parents instill. Protecting our children means finding alternatives to public school that will support parental rights and values. We must develop our own systems that uphold Christian values. Whether it is home education, private schools, or church co-ops, now is the time to determine what option works best for your family and remove your children from the tyranny of government-run schools.

Then get the right people elected to the school boards.

Written by Ben Boychuk

Suddenly, but unsurprisingly, the U.S. Justice Department is interested in parents protesting local school board meetings. Because of course it is.

In America in 2021, citizens’ loud but nonviolent demonstrations before elected officials are tantamount to domestic terrorism and “hate speech,” while the Black Lives Matter and Antifa insurrectionary violence of 2020—which resulted in at least 30 deaths, over $1 billion in property damage, and the brief rise of lawless “autonomous zones” in Seattle, Philadelphia, New York, and Richmond, Virginia—is “fiery but mostly peaceful protest.”

The danger is clear and present—it simply depends upon who is protesting. As one wag put it on Twitter, “The DOJ used to go after MS13. Now you want them to go after Moms of 13-year-olds?”

Parents don’t like what they see coming out of their local schools. But government officials would prefer to do their work unencumbered by public input. This is old news, with an arrogant new twist. Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe summed up the current conventional wisdom nicely at a debate with his Republican opponent the other week: “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

That depends on what the schools are teaching, doesn’t it?

Indoctrination Nation

Parents have two grievances, broadly speaking. First, they oppose COVID-19-related mask mandates for their children. They note that the European countries we’re so often asked to emulate do not have mask (or COVID vaccine) mandates for schools. Sweden, where school is compulsory through the age of 16, actively discourages kids from wearing masks. And yet that country’s transmission rates have gone down population-wide.

The second grievance is also COVID-related, in as much as the lockdowns compelled more parents to notice what their kids are—and are not—learning. Many parents, including many black and Latino parents, do not want their children to be taught that America is a systemically racist nation and that its institutions (capitalism often gets mentioned here) are irredeemable

Parents across the country have shown up to normally staid school board meetings to demand that critical race theory be removed from the curriculum. Defenders of the race-based curriculum like to point out that “critical race theory” is not actually being taught in schools. But that’s just a semantic sleight of hand. No, kids aren’t reading Derrick Bell. Instead, they’re getting “social studies” (since American public schools don’t really teach history anymore) heavily informed by critical race theory and Marxist-tinged critical theory.

Parents are on to the scheme and they’re unhappy about it. The National School Boards Association on September 29 asked Joe Biden to intervene, alleging “America’s public schools and its education leaders are under an immediate threat.” The group says its members have “received death threats and have been subjected to threats and harassment, both online and in person.”

Making a terrorist threat is a crime not protected by the First Amendment. But it’s unclear why such threats could not be investigated by state and local law enforcement, rather than the feds. Well, the NSBA has an answer for that, too, although the rationale is paper-thin: “NSBA believes immediate assistance is required to protect our students, school board members, and educators who are susceptible to acts of violence affecting interstate commerce because of threats to their districts, families, and personal safety.” (Emphasis added.)

Interstate commerce? The NSBA knows that the federal government can do just about anything under the auspices of “interstate commerce,” even if the commerce never crosses state lines. The NSBA’s letter mentions “interstate commerce” three times, even though it never bothers to explain how parents protesting in Loudoun County, Virginia or Coeur d’Alene, Idaho affect the free movement of goods and services among the several states.

While the NSBA notes that some of its members have received threatening letters, and several meetings have been ended early because of crowds “inciting chaos,” it strains to document any actual violence. The NSBA leans on a “fact sheet” published in July by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, which only documents an increase in demonstrations and notes the presence in some instances of “militias and other militant right-wing actors” whose mere presence is supposed to be seen as intimidating.

(It’s unclear whether any school board members have been followed into bathrooms by irate demonstrators, as Arizona’s Democratic U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema was last week. Would that make a difference? As Joe Biden said the other day, such harassment is “part of the process.”)

The Tedious Work of Politics Redux

Obviously, it’s no fun for a school board member to be shouted at by a throng of 200 angry parents. But the First Amendment for the most part protects what parents are doing. Harsh speech is still protected speech.

That doesn’t mean federal authorities can’t make our lives miserable and chill legitimate speech. During the 1990s, attorney Hans Bader reminds, civil rights lawyers with the Clinton Administration “investigated citizens for ‘harassment’ and ‘intimidation’ merely because those citizens spoke out against housing projects for recovering substance abusers or other classes of people protected by the Fair Housing Act.” Those investigations ended after a federal appeals court ruled they violated the First Amendment. But how much did those people lose in time and money battling the federal government before they won?

And just because the courts ruled one way 20 years ago, doesn’t mean a different set of judges ruling on a similar set of facts wouldn’t go the other way today. Bader notes that in 2017, a federal judge “allowed bloggers to be sued for intimidation for angry blog posts that allegedly created a ‘hostile housing environment.’”

Here, once again, the tedious work of politics becomes unavoidable.

Parents might take a leaf from the literal playbook of a Los Angeles-based group called Parent Revolution. About 10 years ago, Parent Revolution was involved heavily with organizing parents at failing public schools to use a (now largely toothless) state law called the Parent Empowerment Act, also known as the “parent trigger.”

Parent Revolution’s insight was to teach parents to use labor-union organizing tactics. They produced a hardcover book, small enough to fit into a pocket, called The Parent Power Handbook. It detailed, simply and directly, how parents could use the law to organize and transform their children’s schools.

Most importantly, anyone could follow the model Parent Revolution laid out in the handbook.

“Step 1: Build Your Base,” “Step 2: Establish Your Chapter,” “Step 3: Pick Your Focus,” “Step 4: Launch Your Campaign.”

Every step involves practical organization advice. Schedule one-on-one conversations. Host house meetings with people you already know. Ask questions like, “What would an ideal school look like?” Try to identify parents who show an extra level of interest. Form a leadership committee. Decide on a focus—in this instance, removing noxious race-based curricula from schools. And then get people excited about it.

California’s parent trigger law had some limited success. It showed that motivated parents could make substantive changes. It also showed that the education establishment would fight viciously to stop them. (Almost every parent-trigger effort ended up in court.)

But if parents cannot get a receptive audience with their elected school board officials, they may need to resort to a tried-and-true, red-white-and-blue act of civil disobedience: the boycott.

When well organized, boycotts can be a highly effective form of political action. In 1968, Chicano activists in east Los Angeles organized a mass boycott of local schools to demand bilingual education. They got it.

Twenty years later, a smaller group of Latino parents organized a boycott of their own—this time, to insist that their kids learn English. They believed, correctly, that their children were being ghettoized in Spanish-only classes and receiving a second-class education. As one mother of a seven-year-old told the Los Angeles Times, “We want our children to be taught in English . . . that’s why we came to the United States. If not, better to keep her in my country. There she can learn in Spanish.” They won. And in 1998, Californians passed Proposition 227, which eliminated bilingual education statewide.

The boycotts succeeded for at least two reasons. First, schools are funded based on the number of pupils in attendance. In other words, the schools were losing money. Second, the parents avoided running afoul of truancy laws by enrolling their kids in free alternative schools for the duration of the boycott. Eventually, the authorities had to accept the parents’ demands.

If You Can’t Beat ’Em, Unseat ’Em

Every few years or so, parents recognize that what goes on at those otherwise boring school board meetings is pretty important to their kids’ wellbeing and educations. Local school boards may not have as much power as they once did—the number of U.S. public school districts has shrunk from more than 117,000 in 1940 to around 13,000 today—but they’re still important. In states with term limits (such as California), one party recognized decades ago that those seemingly insignificant local boards are ideal proving grounds for future candidates for statewide office.

Parents’ impassioned denunciations of noxious critical race theories and their offshoots make for great viral videos and may help shape future policies. Ultimately, however, they’re little more than political theater.

Unless and until these parents are in a position to persuade board members to change their votes, the only other option is to replace the board.

To that end, it isn’t enough to show up once to lodge a complaint. Attend every board meeting, not necessarily to speak, though sometimes to speak to put certain thoughts on the record. Mainly, be there to watch and listen. Pay close attention to the structure of the meeting. Scrutinize the agenda and the minutes, which usually appear online in advance. Take note of who else addresses the board during public comment. Get ahold of the budget and break it down line by line. Study state and local education codes.

Oh, and don’t forget to read the contract with the local teachers’ union.

The United States was legally founded upon the principle of limited government, under which at the time of the founding, the federal government mandating specific medical treatment to individual citizens would never have been tolerated.

Yet, on September 9^th, Joe Biden issued an executive order [1] that “[e]ach agency shall implement, a program” to “require COVID-19 vaccination for all of its Federal employees.”

Current COVID vaccinations have been rushed to market (the first “full” FDA approval of a COVID vaccine was just weeks ago [2]), with apparently substantial shortcuts such as the overlooking of thousands of adverse events including death [3].

While for political purposes, Biden puffs the universality of his vaccine mandate, his staff has recognized [4], and technically complied with legal limits on his power to do so.

In order to make the order sound as broad as possible, the words “each agency” were used, but understanding that the Executive Branch has no authority over the Legislative or Judicial branches (or businesses and individuals not employed by the Executive Branch), they hide the limitation in a definition:

“Sec. 3.  Definitions.  For the purposes of this order:

     (a)  The term “agency” means an Executive agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105”

In typical contract legalese, Biden’s legal staff has also quietly made a disclaimer that such programs be only, “to the extent consistent with applicable law,” which would include the requirement to accommodate a sincerely held religious belief (see “Resources To Fight Tyrannical Vaccine Mandates”).

Interestingly, Biden is the lone wolf in the federal government, as neither the United States Congress, nor the federal Judiciary has yet seen fit to follow suit. Perhaps they understand that the recovery rate for this pandemic is well over 98 percent, and would prefer to avoid the risks of taking the vaccine themselves.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to the offices of the President, U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth and your U.S. Representative to demand that elected officials recognize that American citizens have Constitutionally protected liberties that the Executive Branch cannot usurp.

Moreover, you may want to ask them to stop mandating unproven medical treatments and allow citizens to consult with their own private physicians to decide what course of preventative treatment is best.

IFI supports an individual’s civil right to choose,
as an American, to vaccinate or not.

More ACTION: Please pray for the governing authorities, that they shall follow our law and the law of the Creator upon which it was founded, in all of their actions.

Read more:

Leftist Authoritarians Push Their Values By Any Means Necessary (IFA)

Vaccine Mandate Sticks It To Freedom (Tony Perkins)

The Revolution Will Be Bureaucratized (The Federalist)

Biden’s Divisive COVID-19 Vaccination Plan Favors Coercion Over Persuasion (The Daily Signal)

Footnotes:
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/09/09/executive-order-on-requiring-coronavirus-disease-2019-vaccination-for-federal-employees/

[2] https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine

[3] By contrast, in 1982 Eli Lilly recalled the popular and effective drug, Oraflex, a drug for the pain and inflammation of arthritis based upon 61 deaths in Britain and 11 deaths in the U.S.  As of September 9, 3,867 (of 9,470, or 40%) adverse event reports had been filed with the FDA for deaths of those receiving the single approved vaccination (Pfizer).   https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html 

[4] Unlike the Pritzker administration whose unlawful attempts through “executive orders” to extend his power over private individuals have recently become well-known, and well-challenged by Illinoisans.

For those who have been enjoying the waning days of summer away from news and social media, basking maskless by a refreshing body of water or hiking in a cool forest with a face as naked as a newborn babe’s, here’s what set ablaze the perpetually burning neurons of leftists: Texas banned all abortions performed on small humans whose hearts are beating and made anyone who facilitates the illegal killing of humans with beating hearts open to litigation. Sounds reasonable to me, but then again, I’ve never been a fan of killing defenseless humans who have committed no crime.

Following Texas’ prohibition of human slaughter after the first six weeks of life, the left lost what’s left of their minds.

With their feticidal minds unhinged at the prospect of mothers not being free to hire hitmen who identify as “physicians” to off their offspring, leftists proved again why they’re not known for skill in the use of evidence, sound analogical thinking, respect for science, respect for human rights, coherence, consistency, or morality.

Let’s take a cursory look at the darn things cultural regressives are muttering, sputtering, and tweeting:

Joe Biden, the self-identifying Catholic who claims his “avocation” is theology, recently said,

I respect people who … don’t support Roe v. Wade. I respect their views. I respect … those who believe life begins at the moment of conception and all. I respect that. Don’t agree, but I respect that.

But wait, in 2015 Biden said,

I’m prepared to accept that at the moment of conception there’s human life and being, but I’m not prepared to say that to other God-fearing, non-God-fearing people that have a different view.

So, which is it? Does he believe that at the moment of conception a new human life comes into existence or does he not? If not, what new science convinced him between age 72 and 78 that the union of human egg and sperm no longer marks the beginning of the life of a new human being?

(As an aside, why can’t leftists who claim to believe that women can be born in men’s bodies and that men can menstruate and give birth be like Biden and respect the views of God-fearing and non-God-fearing people who disagree?)

Disgraceful CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, brother of disgraced former governor of New York Andrew Cuomo, tried to suggest that 6-week-old human fetuses don’t have heartbeats because they don’t have hearts. The Mayo Clinic dares to dissent:

Growth is rapid this week [sixth week]. Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby’s back is closing. The baby’s brain and spinal cord will develop from the neural tube. The heart and other organs also are starting to form and the heart begins to beat.

Please note, the Mayo Clinic refers to the baby as a “baby.”

CNN’s Joy Reid fretted that the Texas law signals the Handmaid’s Tale is coming to America—you know, the story of fertile breeding women being forced to have sex with ruling elite men while their wives watch. Reid’s guest, failed presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, nodding in agreement, fretted about the law’s impact on the “most vulnerable among us”:

This law is about bearing down on the most vulnerable among us. It’s bearing down on the woman, or the transperson, or the nonbinary who’s workin’ three jobs.

Warren views pregnant “transpersons” who are workin’ three jobs as more vulnerable than the babies whom they seek to kill.

Bette Midler tweeted,

I suggest that all women refuse to have sex with men until they are guaranteed the right to choose by Congress.

Midler forgot to specify the direct object of the transitive verb “choose.” To be clear, she means the right to choose to have incipient human life killed.

I completely agree with Midler that if a woman plans to chemically starve her baby fetus or have her fetus dismembered as her back-up contraception plan, it’s best she not have sex.

Millionaire leftist co-founders of the ridesharing company Lyft, Logan Green and John Zimmer, have gone all out in support of killing tiny humans:

Lyft is donating $1 million to Planned Parenthood to help ensure that transportation is never a barrier to healthcare access.

Killing humans is not “healthcare” no matter how many times leftists use this Newspeakian euphemism. Anyone who cares about the health of womb-dwellers ought not use Lyft.

And any leftist who believes that practices that have a “disparate impact” on persons of color are racist practices should know that black babies are killed in utero at much higher rates than are white babies:

Black women have been experiencing induced abortions at a rate nearly 4 times that of White women for at least 3 decades, and likely much longer. … In the current unfolding environment, there may be no better metric for the value of Black lives.

The millions of dollars donated by racists Green and Zimmer are going to facilitate the racist practices of Planned Parenthood.

The ever-snippy White House spokesperson Jen Psaki scolded a reporter for asking about how Biden reconciles his Catholic faith with his support for human slaughter. Psaki’s retort was revelatory in that it demonstrated how un-woke she is.

Without even asking for the reporter’s pronouns, Psaki just assumed the reporter was a man, presumably because he looks like a man and sounds like a man. Psaki asserted presumptuously that the reporter has never been pregnant. How does she know? Doesn’t Psaki know that in the woke playbook, some women have men’s bodies, and some men have women’s bodies and can get pregnant? I guess Psaki is an intolerant, hateful, ignorant bigot.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin claimed that the refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to block the Texas law constitutes “a real blow against the U.S. Supreme Court’s institutional reputation.”  It’s strange to hear Toobin, who pleasured himself on a work Zoom call, express concern over “reputation.” But then again, Toobin has a vested interest in keeping abortion legal: He pressured a former paramour with whom he had had an extramarital affair to abort their now 12-year-old son. Toobin may be planning for his future “needs.”

Toobin also described Roe v. Wade as the “second most famous opinion of the last 100 years.” He should have said “most infamous opinion of the last 150 years.” Here’s what liberal legal scholars and pundits have said about the infamous Roe v. Wade opinion:

• “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” (Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School professor)

• “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible.” (Edward Lazarus, former clerk to SCOTUS Justice Harry Blackmun)

• “Blackmun’s [U.S. Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.” (William Saletan, Slate magazine writer)

• Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” (John Hart Ely, former law professor at Yale, Harvard, and Stanford universities)

• “[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision—the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution—strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous.” (Richard Cohen, Washington Post columnist)

• “[T]he finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself.” (Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University Law School professor)

• “Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching.” (Michael Kinsley, attorney, political journalist).

• As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether” (Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania Law School professor)

• “Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.” (Archibald Cox, JFK’s Solicitor General, former Harvard Law School professor)

One law professor who has no need of constitutional grounding for abortion is UC Irvine law professor and cheerleader for legalized human slaughter, Michele Goodwin. Goodwin is a long-time and influential advocate of the legal right to kill the preborn. She and co-author Erwin Chemerinsky set forth their goals in a 2017 paper titled, “Abortion: a Woman’s Private Choice”:

We begin by justifying the protection of rights not found in the text of the Constitution. … Foremost among these rights is control over one’s body and over one’s reproduction. … Finally in Part III we discuss what it would mean for abortion to be regarded as a private choice. In this Part, we identify three implications: a) restoring strict scrutiny to examining laws regulating abortions, which would mean that the government must be neutral between childbirth and abortion; b) preventing the government from denying funding for abortions when it pays for childbirth; and c) invalidating the countless types of restrictions on abortion. (emphasis added)

Goodwin rightly condemns the “notorious eugenics period in the United States,” in which allegedly defective preborn babies were forcibly killed by the government. Goodwin fails, however, to acknowledge the difference between the government mandating that a doctor perform a surgical procedure on the body of a woman without her consent and the government prohibiting a doctor from dismembering or in other ways destroying the body of a human fetus without his or her consent.

Goodwin also believes the Texas bill to preserve human life is analogous to the Fugitive Slave Act. She believes that the grotesque law that incentivized citizens to help send humans into bondage is analogous to a law that incentivizes citizens to help prevent the slaughter of humans. Some might counter that the Texas law is more akin to laws that offer rewards for the capture of killers than it is to the Fugitive Slave Act.

Now that leftists have lost control of the U.S. Supreme Court, they’re stomping their angry feet and demanding the Court be jampacked with leftists, something conservatives have not called for to repair the grievous harm done by seven Justices in 1973. Neither the Constitution nor the will of the people matters to “progressives.”

There is no constitutional or moral right to have humans killed because of their dependency status, location, absence of self-consciousness, lack of full development, disabilities, anticipated future, maternal inconvenience, insufficient maternal finances, or crimes of their fathers. A civilized, compassionate, moral, and just society does not find the final solution to poverty, disease, disability, or any other form of human suffering in the killing of others. And in the Constitution, there is no free-floating absolute right to privacy in which humans can do anything they feel like doing to other human beings. Leftist U.S. Supreme Court Justices invented such a “right” out of whole blood-stained cloth.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Progressives-Say-the-Darndest-Things-About-Killing-Tiny-Humans.mp3

Yesterday, Joe Biden proclaimed the evacuation from Afghanistan an “extraordinary success” that was executed exactly the way “the mission was designed.”

Meanwhile, the Taliban celebrated this extraordinary success, also known as the Taliban’s humiliation of the most powerful military in history, in the only way tyrannical Muslims know how: through a shocking act of grotesque barbarism that makes civilized people weep—or vomit. They flew a U.S. helicopter from which was dangling a corpse.

Now, false god-serving radicals and other godless regimes that devalue human life are emboldened. And with Biden’s gift of “tens of billions of dollars’ worth” of materiel paid for by American taxpayers, the emboldened terrorists are better equipped to torture and slaughter friends of America and to enslave women and girls.

If we don’t turn our sinking ship of state around—starting now—in preparation for the 2022 midterm elections, what will our military look like in the future. Sure, we’ll have critical race propagandists; atheist chaplains; hormone-doping, cross-sex impersonators; homosexuals; and pregnant fighter pilots, but will we have a few good men?

Will young men enlist if they can’t trust the commander in chief?

Will young men enlist to defend and protect a country that they were indoctrinated to believe is a systemically and irredeemably racist country whose Founders were evil and whose Constitution should be shredded?

Will young men indoctrinated with the leftist belief that America the ugly must be reimagined and deconstructed be willing to say, “This We’ll Defend,” “Always Faithful,” “Not self, but country,” or “Aim High … Fly-Fight-Win”?

Elections have consequences. So too do the ideas driving voting decisions.

Sanctimonious Never-Trumpers like David French, Lincoln Project members, and Christianity Today writers whose flawed moral and political calculus led them to conclude that facilitating the election of a corrupt, senile recluse who supports the destruction of marriage, the legal right to slaughter the unborn at taxpayer expense through all nine months of pregnancy for any or no reason, and the mandatory indoctrination of children and government employees with critical race theory was preferable to Trump with all his acknowledged flaws.

In so doing, they are complicit in the harm that is befalling those Afghans who helped us.

They are complicit in the indoctrination of yet more American children who will be taught the destructive, disunifying view that America and white people are ugly oppressors.

They are complicit in the eradication of childhood innocence, sex-segregated bathrooms, and girls’ sports.

They are complicit in the growing toleration and even celebration of lawlessness. Biden incentivized illegal immigration that has resulted in human suffering far surpassing anything the press savaged the Trump administration for. Under Biden, police departments have been defunded, financially strapped cities permit looting, vagrancy and littering laws are flouted creating unlivable cities, and mandatory COVID restrictions are scorned by the rich and powerful.

Heeding the words of Biden’s pick to be our ambassador to Japan, Rahm-bo Emanuel, who famously said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”—this one, the Chinese Communist Pandemic—leftist government leaders are incrementally paving the way for a de facto social credit system akin to China’s. No vaccine? No job.

Add to that the requirement by Big Business and Big Brother Sister Sibling that employees must refer to colleagues who pretend to be the sex they aren’t by incorrect or silly pronouns and, voilà, America’s Social Credit System.

As lawmakers plunge America further into debt; as the last few coins are emptied from the pockets of Americans to fill the emptied coffers of the government; as First Amendment speech rights and religious liberty are undermined; as parental rights are stripped; and as deviant sexual obsessions grip the hearts, minds, bodies of Americans and the institutions that shape our lives, we have decisions to make. Will we accept the gift of self-government, messy as it is, and use it wisely? Or will we leave it to the foolish and spiritually blind who will greedily grip the gift and then crush it.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/What-Biden-and-Never-Trumpers-Have-Done.mp3

On November 7, 2020, four days after the General Election, a millennial friend who identifies as a Christian and is a devoted disciple of critical race theory and BLM posted this sacrilegious image on her Facebook page:

These were the last words of Christ before he died on the cross. The debt mankind owes to God for our sin and rebellion was finished, that is, paid in full, by Christ’s suffering and death. Jesus provided the means—the only means—for man to be reconciled to God. Satan was defeated. The sinless lamb of God’s self-sacrifice for the sins of man fulfilled all Old Testament prophecies. And this millennial Christian used that biblical allusion to celebrate the defeat of Donald Trump.

In addition to being sacrilegious, it is nonsensical as an analogy. If “it” refers to Trump’s tenure as president, in what precise way or ways is that analogous to Christ’s finished work on the cross? If Trump’s presidency is in no ways akin to Christ’s finished work—which, of course, it wasn’t—why use that allusion? Did she think it was clever? Funny? Unifying?

One thing is clear, this millennial and countless other Never-Trump, pro-Biden evangelicals believed that the country suffered under Trump’s presidency and that Biden would be America’s savior. And with their eyes blinded by rage at Trump and their minds clouded with foolish ideology, they have brought untold suffering to the world.

Cultural regressives who self-identify as “progressives” ripped Trump for his purported foreign policy ineptitude, claiming that he was destroying America’s reputation on the international stage. And here we are now with Western European leaders publicly savaging Biden’s astonishingly inept exit from Afghanistan, the effects of which worsen every day. As of this writing, two ISIS-K bomb blasts at the Kabul airport have left at least 12 U.S. service members dead, 15 injured, and an unknown number of Afghans dead or injured.

Politico has reported that “U.S. officials in Kabul gave the Taliban a list of names of American citizens, green card holders and Afghan allies to grant entry into the militant-controlled outer perimeter” of the Kabul airport. An outraged defense official who described this act as “appalling and shocking,” said, “they just put all those Afghans on a kill list.”

Rebecca Klapper writing in Newsweek Magazine—no friend of conservatism—paints a vivid picture of the dim view European leaders have of bumbling Biden and his gang of accomplices who are too busy planning the forced entrance of men in dresses into women’s locker rooms to plan an exit of soldiers and allies from one of the most dangerous countries in the world:

Markus Soeder, a leading member of German Chancellor Angela Merkel‘s center-right Union bloc, called for accountability from the United States.

Soeder said Washington should provide funding and shelter to people fleeing Afghanistan, since “the United States of America bear the main responsibility for the current situation.”

…

Even in the United Kingdom, which has always prided itself on a its “special relationship” with Washington … barbs were coming from all angles.

Former British Army chief Richard Dannatt said, “the manner and timing of the Afghan collapse is the direct result of President Biden’s decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the 20th anniversary of 9/11. At a stroke, he has undermined the patient and painstaking work of the last five, 10, 15 years to build up governance in Afghanistan, develop its economy, transform its civil society and build up its security forces. ” Dannatt said Wednesday in Parliament.

In response to attempts to “absolve” Biden of culpability for the botched exit, Charles Cooke writing for National Review said,

The Biden administration could. … quite obviously have ensured that before our troops were drawn down we had got every American, permanent resident, and eligible Afghan out; we had removed both our weaponry and any sensitive information; and we had consulted properly with our allies. That part … was within Joe Biden’s control. And he completely and utterly screwed it up.

Allies are not angered by just the exit debacle but also by Biden’s unconscionable lies concocted to shift blame, lies that provoked unprecedented bipartisan rebukes by members of Parliament:

Biden putting much of the blame on Afghan forces for not protecting their nation has not gone down well with Western allies, either.

Conservative Parliament member Tom Tugendhat, who fought in Afghanistan, was one of several British lawmakers taking offense.

“To see their commander-in-chief call into question the courage of men I fought with, to claim that they ran, is shameful,” Tugendhat said.

Chris Bryant, from the opposition Labour Party, called Biden’s remarks about Afghan soldiers, “some of the most shameful comments ever from an American president.”

Cranky leftists with their gender-neutral underpants in a twist repeatedly croaked that Trump lied about Stormy Daniels, lied about the weather on his inauguration day, and lied about the number of attendees at his inauguration.

Contrast those lies with Biden’s. Biden lied when he said al Qaeda was gone from Afghanistan. He lied when he said, “we know of no circumstance where American citizens are—carrying an American passport—are trying to get through to the airport.” He lied when he said, “I have seen no question of our credibility from our allies around the world.” And he lied when he said, “The Afghan military gave up, sometimes without trying to fight.”

Add those lies to the mound of whoppers from leftist journalists, members of Congress, Democrat Party operatives, the CIA, and FBI (aided and abetted by the algorithmic mischief of Big Tech) throughout Trump’s presidency and the 2020 campaign—lies which were created to take down a duly elected president and then to prevent his reelection.

They lied when they claimed Trump called all illegal immigrants rapists and murderers. They lied when they said Trump put immigrant children in cages. They lied about Trump and a Russian prostitute. They lied about Russia-collusion. They lied about Hunter Biden and his colorful computer.

And now in addition to the tragic scene of suffering on our southern border created by Biden, China, Russia, Iran, the Taliban, al Qaeda, and ISIS-K are celebrating the humiliation of America. Our relations with our allies have never been worse. Americans are dead or stranded in the hellhole of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. And Afghan women and girls await their fate as sex slaves to barbarians.

I wonder if my millennial friend still thinks the election of Biden signaled the arrival of a savior who will end the suffering caused by former President Trump. It’s hard to know because she hasn’t posted a single thing about Biden since her sacrilegious post.

We are often led to believe that it is the Christian thing to do to keep the southern border open. But is that really the case? This question is all the more acute in our nation’s battle against the spread of COVID-19.

President Biden is acting as if there were one standard in dealing with COVID for law-abiding American citizens and another standard for those who break the law—as in the example of the illegal aliens streaming through our porous southern border. Gary Bauer in his End of Day Report (7/29/21) notes:

“While the CDC is forcing vaccinated Americans to mask up again, and the big teachers’ unions are suggesting our schools might not reopen in the fall, Biden is leaving our southern border wide open. Six thousand illegal aliens are pouring across the southern border each and every day….These migrants are untested. They’re unvaccinated.  Many are refusing to take the COVID vaccines. And many are infected with COVID.” Furthermore, he reports that at least 50,000 migrants have been released throughout the country. And outbreaks of COVID are being reported in border detention facilities.

Dr. William Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, wrote an open letter in late July to the Secretary for Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra: “According to recent whistleblowers, children living in HHS migrant shelters are living in subhuman conditions….After enduring a long, arduous journey, these children are sent to camps where Covid is running rampant. In the girls’ tents, lice is left untreated while the boys turn riotous because of the poor conditions they are forced to endure during their detainment at HHS facilities.”

Meanwhile, Governor Greg Abbot of Texas is trying to close the border—in part to stop the spread of COVID—and yet he’s getting direct resistance from the Biden administration. The Associated Press (7/30/21) reports:

“The Biden administration sued Texas…to prevent state troopers from stopping vehicles carrying migrants on grounds that they may spread COVID-19, warning that the practice would exacerbate problems amid high levels of crossings on the state’s border with Mexico.”

Vice President Kamala Harris, tasked by Biden to head the border crisis, says we have to address the “root causes” of why these people are coming before we can seal the borders. One may well ask, “Why is that our burden?” And besides, that could take forever. It’s like saying that before we can administer first aid to a shooting victim, we have to solve the crime first.

The founders of America made it clear when they created the Constitution that their goals were to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Clearly, Biden’s open borders violate many of these key goals.

Dr. Richard Land, president emeritus of Southern Evangelical Seminary, says,

“Open borders is national suicide. Polls show us that 170 million people in Latin America would like to come to the United States. I don’t blame them, if I lived in one of those countries, I’d want to come here too. But we cannot absorb 170 million people.”

Such an overrun of our country could ultimately cause a collapse into anarchy.

Dave Kubal, CEO and president of Intercessors for America—a group dedicated to praying for our country—notes, “We are a nation of immigrants….I completely believe in an immigration system, but it has to be legal…94% of those people that come across the border, don’t show up for their amnesty case, and so they’re just living illegally in the United States of America.”

But aren’t open borders compassionate? Gary Bauer once told me, “To suggest that because God loves all human beings including migrants, that the United States must open its borders and allow literally millions of people to walk into the country would mean that God was endorsing the end of America as we know it. This country can’t support and pay for millions of millions of people coming into the country.”

But, again, aren’t open borders the Christian position? In his book, We Will Not Be Silenced, Pastor Erwin Lutzer writes, “I reject the notion that those of us who believe in secure borders are racist and lack compassion….without enforced border control, we have in effect, lost our country. The long-term consequences are devastating.”

The left often chafes at the idea of securing the border—although I’m sure these same people lock their own doors at night. How can our country be safe and secure if the borders are wide open? Isn’t it more compassionate to keep the borders closed, especially at a time when many illegal aliens are dying or getting sick in the migration—and especially as we are experiencing new and perilous strains of COVID?

With the disastrous Fall of Saigon Redux—that is, the Fall of Kabul—and the 2022 midterms fast approaching, it seems a good time for a cursory review of the past seven months of Joe Biden’s ill-fated presidency and of 2020 pre-presidential election discussions.

Befuddled Biden and his hapless administration have presided over the epically inept exit from Afghanistan, which is resulting in a humanitarian crisis, has left Afghans who helped the United States at risk, has left U.S. military weapons in the hands of terrorists, has increased the threat of terrorist acts on U.S. soil, has emboldened enemies,and has diminished our allies’ trust in America as a security partner.

The epically disastrous border crisis created by Biden policies and pronouncements dwarfs in magnitude of human suffering and in numbers anything that happened under the Trump administration. If the legacy press included ethical journalists, this would have been front page news every day until the Fall of Kabul. They would be rightly condemning Biden’s housing of children in overcrowded plastic pods, the release of COVID-positive illegals into the U.S., the record-setting number of deaths of immigrants along the Arizona border, the refusal of Biden to allow journalists to witness the housing crisis firsthand, and the failure of Kamala Harris to visit the border communities most affected by the crisis.

Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which incentivizes unemployment through the distribution of “free” money, has stymied an economy that should be surging.

Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement which will result in thousands of lost jobs, and he shut-down the Keystone XL pipeline which has resulted in thousands of lost jobs. The energy independence the Trump administration secured is dwindling, and inflation is increasing.

The frantically pursued $1 trillion infrastructure monstrosity and $3.5 trillion socialist budget resolution will plunge America deeper into the hellhole of debt Democrats (at times aided and abetted by spendthrift Republicans) have dug with their Bagger 288 excavator.

Biden removed the Hyde Amendment from his budget, an amendment which prevented taxpayer-funding of abortions, and he rescinded the Mexico City Policy, which prevented federal dollars from going to foreign non-profit organizations that provide abortions.

While deceitfully promising to be the unity president, Biden has promoted controversial and divisive social policies. He is promoting racism from California to the New York Island by embedding critical race theory in all government agencies. He seeks to end women’s privacy and sports through his support of science-denying “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices. And he endorses “trans”-cultic medical experimentation on children that mutilates healthy bodies in a perverse effort to cosmetically conceal their sex.

Biden is still cheerleading the 800-page Voter Chicanery Law, H.R. 1, which, according to the Heritage Foundation’s  Hans von Spakovsky, “is a dangerous and radical bill”:

It threatens the security, fairness, and integrity of our elections and restricts the First Amendment rights of Americans to freely engage in political speech and activity.

It would force state legislatures to hand over the redistricting process to unaccountable bureaucrats and institutionalizes racial and gender quotas.

It would also implement what amounts to a test to participate in redistricting that violates the associational and religious rights of the public.

And Biden supports the equally dangerous and deceptively named Equality Act, which would require that federal law recognize disordered subjective feelings and deviant behaviors as protected characteristics. Federal law would absurdly recognize homoeroticism and cross-sex masquerading as conditions that must be treated like race and biological sex, which are objective, 100 percent heritable conditions that are in all cases immutable, and carry no behavioral implications. (Troubling side note: The third-ranking U.S. House Republican, Elise Stefanik, chair of the U.S. House Republican Caucus, was one of eight U.S. House Republicans to vote for the Equality Act.)

Here are some questions I posed one month prior to the 2020 presidential election to GOP voters who opposed Trump. As we approach the mid-term elections, perhaps it’s a good time to revisit these questions:

• Do we really want to give more power to corrupt Democrats in Congress or give the presidency to a cognitively impaired recluse?

• Do we want to pay for the slaughter of babies in the womb, including full-term babies?

• Are we so blind we cannot see the danger to the republic posed by the appointment of activist federal judges and Supreme Court Justices who will legislate from the bench?

• Do we want the U.S. Supreme Court packed and the filibuster eliminated?

• Do we want to destroy any hope for school choice, restore federal funding for Critical Race Theory propaganda, and further empower leftist teachers’ unions?

• Do we want to return the U.S. to energy dependence on Middle East oil?

• Do we want taxes raised and businesses regulated into the ground?

• Do we want “free” college for all students, including illegal immigrants?

• Do we want law enforcement “reimagined” and defunded, ICE and the DEA eliminated, and borders opened?

• Do we want all women’s sports, locker rooms, restrooms, prisons, shelters, semi-private hospital rooms, nursing home rooms, and dorm rooms sexually integrated?

• Do we want our First Amendment religious, speech, and assembly rights diminished through the “Equality Act”?

• Do we want government to protect the invasive, tyrannical, leftist behemoth Big Tech?

While Never-Trumpers and Christianity Today focused like laser beams on the morally and intellectually compromised Trump, calling into question the veracity of his claims of being a Christian, they deftly donned their blinders when turning their bobbling heads toward the equally morally and intellectually compromised Biden, whose claims to being a Christian are at least as dubious.

What too often became lost in all the frenzied virtue-signaling and tussling over which man is less worthy of the office was a discussion of whose policies and personnel will best serve the needs of America and Americans. The 2020 presidential election meant not just the replacement of Trump by Grampa Simpson but also the replacement of all members of the Trump administration with the gang that can’t shoot straight.

Remember all this as you make mid-term decisions.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Disastrous-Biden-Administration.mp3

Written by Michael Cook

Last September President Trump issued an executive order which banned instruction in critical race theory in government agencies and institutions which had federal contracts. He wanted to combat offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping.

On his first day in office, President Biden revoked that order. Not only that, he turbocharged critical race theory by requiring all federal agencies to prioritize and create opportunities for communities which have been historically underserved.

But what is critical race theory? As American journalist Christopher Rufo – who has become one of its leading critics — wrote in the New York Post:

Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy. Yet most Americans have never heard of it — and of those who have, many don’t understand it. This must change. We need to know what it is so we can know how to fight it.

In this 16-minute video Rufo runs through the origins, principles, and policies of critical race theory. Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, knows what he is talking about – he has created a database of more than a thousand stories of twisted, counter-cultural thinking.

Most people have a kneejerk reaction to Critical Race Theory – it’s either angelically good or demonically bad. After this rapid-fire, well-organized sketch of the dangers it poses you’ll know why it’s more the latter.

This article was originally published at Mercatornet.com.

Written by Michael Barone

Speech suppression is a habit that the Biden administration and its liberal supporters can’t seem to break. Many staffers may have picked up the habit in their student years: Colleges and universities have been routinely censoring “politically incorrect” speech for the last 30 years. As Thomas Sowell noted, “There are no institutions in America where free speech is more severely restricted than in our politically correct colleges and universities, dominated by liberals.”

Now, the Biden administration seems to be giving the colleges and universities some serious competition. Like many Democrats during the Trump presidency, they have come to see suppression of “fake news” as the ordinary course of business and indeed a prime responsibility of social media platforms.

For decades, print and broadcast media have been dominated by liberals, but Facebook, Google and Twitter have developed a stranglehold over the delivery of news which exceeds anything that the three major broadcast networks and a few national newspapers every enjoyed. If they suppress a story or a line of argument, it largely disappears from public view. And to the extent that it lingers, it can be stigmatized by these multibillion-dollar companies as “misinformation” or “fake news.”

Speech suppression was exactly what White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki had in mind last week when she called on Facebook to suppress 12 accounts that she said were spreading “misinformation” about COVID-19 vaccines. These accounts, she said July 15, were “producing 65% of vaccine misinformation on social media platforms.”

“Facebook needs to move more quickly to remove harmful, violative posts. Posts that would be within their policy for removal often remain up for days, and that’s too long. The information spreads too quickly.”

And she wasn’t aiming her demand at just Facebook. “You shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others,” she added a day later. The message was surely not lost on these companies, whose fabulously successful business models are vulnerable to government disruption.

Like most speech suppressors, Psaki protested her good intentions. As did her boss, President Joe Biden, who, when asked about Facebook on Friday, said simply, “They’re killing people.” The implication is that any advice contrary to the current recommendations of public health officials — contrary to “the science” — is bound to increase the death toll.

This is more in line with Cardinal Bellarmine’s view of science than Galileo’s. As Galileo knew, science is not acceptance of holy writ but learning from observation and experiment. Today, in dealing with a novel and deadly virus, current science is a body of hypotheses only partly tested and subject to revision based on emerging evidence.

There’s a long list of things once believed to be “misinformation” about COVID that are now widely accepted. One prime example: the possibility that the coronavirus was accidentally released from the Wuhan lab. For more than a year, this was widely treated as a wacky right-wing conspiracy theory. Facebook slapped “warnings” on it and boasted that it reduced readership — i.e., suppressed speech.

Then, in May, former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade, in an article that Facebook let slip through, argued a lab leak was likelier than animal-to-human transmission, and a group of 18 bioscientists called for a deeper investigation. The Biden administration, to its credit, soon reversed itself and opened its own investigation and, reportedly, multiple officials now believe the lab leak theory is likely correct. Some “misinformation!”

That example provides powerful support for Galileo’s view that debate over scientific matters takes place best out in the open. But of course the urge to suppress speech is not limited to science. As conservative commentator Stephen L. Miller wrote, “Removing information on vaccines will translate right over to anything they think is misinformation on gun violence, or climate, or healthcare or what defines a man or woman. Which is why they are doing this.”

If you think that’s extravagant, consider that, as Townhall’s Guy Benson argued, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been stretching its ambit to studying gun violence and climate change even while letting its core mission of advancing public health atrophy, as shown by its inability to produce a COVID test.

It’s easy to imagine this administration pressuring Facebook and other social media to suppress information on other issues. For example, as the New York Post‘s Michael Goodwin noted, his paper’s negative stories about Hunter Biden‘s shady business dealings, which were largely blocked from public view in the weeks before the 2020 election.

Speech suppression is evidently habit-forming. Which is why a constitutional amendment was passed back in the 1790s guaranteeing “freedom of speech, and of the press.” Or is that obsolete in these modern times?

Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.

Last week many news story headlines made it sound as if the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. In reality, this moderate court again avoided taking a strong stand on a politically charged issue, and simply ruled that the Plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case. You could call this a dodge on a technicality, and it was, but even Justice Clarence Thomas, a critic of Obamacare, who criticized the court for not following through logically with past decisions, particularly on the individual mandate, agreed with the lack of standing.

President Joe Biden used the opportunity to mischaracterize the ruling as a sweeping affirmation of the terrible program and called for its expansion. “Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision is a major victory for all Americans benefitting from this groundbreaking and life-changing law,” Biden’s handlers wrote in a statement for him.

Are Americans really benefiting from the Affordable Care Act? Not according to a new state-by-state study. Many Americans are paying a lot more, with fewer choices, than they were before the politicians “fixed” health care for us.  (Democrat leaders, specifically own this failure, as no Republican voted for the ACA – 34 Democrats also voted against it.)

The horrifically misnamed “Affordable Care Act” is one of the biggest frauds ever committed against the American people. In Indiana, Hoosiers, are now paying twice the amount for individual health insurance than they paid before Obamacare was passed.  As the Heritage Foundation notes, “Hoosiers paid an average $484 a month for coverage in 2019. That is $243 more than what they paid in 2013, the last year before Obamacare took effect. Additionally, Indiana has 8 fewer health insurers offering Obamacare exchange plans in 2021 than offered individual market plans in 2013.”

Hoosiers have fewer choices and higher costs, (and probably less coverage with higher deductibles) but in a weird way, it could be even worse.  Nationally, the average monthly premium paid by consumers in 2019 was 129 percent higher than before Obamacare took effect. Indiana has seen only a 101 percent increase in insurance costs.

Citizens in five states (Alabama, Nebraska, Missouri, West Virginia, and Wyoming) have seen their average monthly premiums triple in price. Only one state, Massachusetts, saw insurance premiums decline since Obamacare became law. Nationally, there are now 142 fewer insurance providers than there were before Obamacare. Less competition means higher prices and fewer choices.

On at least 15 different occasions, President Barak Obama claimed that premiums would go down. He specifically said that the average savings would be $2500 a year for a family. Rather than decreasing $200 a month as promised, Hoosiers have paid that much more each month.

This reminds me of what economist Milton Friedman who once said, “The government’s solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.”

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

The dust that racist bullies tried to kick in the face of the honorable U.S. Senator Tim Scott for his crime of delivering a far superior speech in response to Biden’s lackluster recitation before a sparsely attended joint session of Congress has not quite settled.

In addition to delivering a poignant, inspiring speech, Sen. Scott committed the crime of rejecting the dogma spewed by leftists who detest tolerance, inclusivity, and free-thinking—especially from blacks whom they desperately need to keep chained to the Democrat Party.

In order to malign Sen. Scott, MSNBC’s oft-deceitful Joy Reid had to misrepresent what he said. In a scornful tone, she imitated Scott, saying, “This isn’t a racist country. There’s no racism here.”

The first problem is Sen. Scott never said, “There’s no racism here.” He said America is not a racist country—big difference that apparently escaped Reid.

America is constituted and defined centrally by the principles delineated in our founding documents—documents which assume the existence of God–and Americans can be justifiably evaluated in terms of how they align with those principles. The Left is now moving America at a precipitous pace away from the Constitution and God and toward racism and other forms of oppression.

Since there are racists in every country in the world, and racist acts—including speech acts—are committed in every country in the world, does Reid believe every country in the world is racist?

There are liars in this country (including at MSNBC and CNN) and every other country. Does that, in Reid’s view, make America and every other country lying countries? In Reid’s view, are MSNBC and CNN lying companies?

There are lazy people in this and every other country. Does that make America and every other country lazy countries?

There are egregiously selfish people in this and every other country. Does that make America and every other country egregiously selfish countries?

There are lawless anarchists who loot and burn private businesses in America. Is America, therefore, a lawless, anarchical country?

Joe Biden said America is not a racist country, and Kamala Harris said Americans are not racists. In Reid’s view, are they racists?

“Progressives” have spewed virulently racist comments at Sen. Scott in the hours and days since his response. In Reid’s view, is “progressivism” racist?

Not to be outdone by Reid in the creepy racism department, MSNBC host Tiffany Cross described the “inside” of Sen. Scott’s head as “hollow,” asserting that he represents “no one but the sleepy, slow-witted sufferers of Stockholm syndrome who get elevated to prominence for repeating a false narrative about this country that makes conservative white people feel comfortable.” Cross called him Mitch McConnell’s “tap dancer,” and a “token” who is “thirsty for white approval.”

That’s rhetoric that would make a KKK grand wizard smile.

Cross claimed that when blacks speak “an uncomfortable truth, like Nikole Hannah-Jones [author of the 1619 Project], the party that Scott claims is not racist gets big mad and tries to silence you.” Her evidence for the outlandish claim that Republicans try to silence black “progressives” was that “Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell asked Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to scrap teaching of the 1619 Project.” Perfect encapsulation of the “progressive” belief that their freedom to do (or have) anything requires government subsidization.

Not using tax dollars or providing federal support for a particular curriculum does not constitute silencing it. And Republicans don’t object to the 1619 Project being taught in government schools because it articulates “uncomfortable” truths. They object to it because it’s a biased load of propaganda that many historians—including historians of color—find historically inaccurate.

While we digest the unsavory tripe that racist “progressives” are force-feeding us, trying to gaslight Americans into believing the freest, least racist country in the history of the world is “systemically racist,” let’s ruminate on a few questions.

Which political party supports the sale and purchase of humans (or genetic material to create humans)?

Which party separates children from mothers or fathers?

Which party declares some humans to be non-persons?

Which party denies children the freedom to go to good schools?

Which party tries to command persons of color what to think and say?

Which party is obsessed with skin color, averring that skin color matters more than character?

Are “progressives” like Reid and Cross concerned about the disproportionate number of black babies being slaughtered in their mothers’ wombs every year? Black Arizona State Representative Walt Blackman sure is:

Abortion impacts African Americans at a higher rate than any other population group. In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released an Abortion Surveillance Report. According to that report, black women make up 14 percent of the childbearing population. Yet, 36 percent of all abortions were obtained by black women. At a ratio of 474 abortions per 1,000 live births, black women have the highest ratio of any group in the country. …

A study by Protecting Black Lives, in 2012, found that 79 percent of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of minority communities.

In the past, we criticized the tobacco industry for targeting young people with their advertising. Recently, the nicotine vape industry has been criticized for similar practices. The prevalence of abortion providers in African American and Hispanic neighborhoods indicates the abortion industry is targeting too. It smacks of the eugenics-linked past of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and her views of contraception and abortion as ways of diminishing the black population.

What do Reid and Cross call “progressive” support for the killing of black babies? What do they call “progressive” support for Planned Parenthood, which plants most of its abattoirs in the heart of black communities? What do they call “progressive” endorsement of fatherless families and the policies that incentivize them when studies show one of the chief predictors of success is being raised in a home with a father? What do they call “progressive” refusal to offer school choice to disadvantaged families of color? What do they call it when “progressives” teach children of one skin color that children of another skin color are “lesser than”? What do they call it when “progressives” hurl the epithet “Uncle Tim” at a black man for thinking freely?

I call the whole stinking mess systemic racism.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/systemicRacismProgressives_mixdown.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

A new regulation proposed by Joe Biden’s Department of Education would further weaponize federal funding to schools in an effort to promote fraudulent history and more “Critical Race Theory” indoctrination.

The widely condemned “Theory,” designed to encourage racism and division among Americans under the guise of fighting “white privilege,” is already ubiquitous in government schools nationwide. But under Biden’s executive order, federal funding would be prioritized for indoctrination centers that impose it more vigorously.

The proposed new federal regulation, justified under an “executive order” from Joe Biden, would provide financial incentives to government schools that impose “culturally responsive teaching and learning,” according to the text. Analysts widely condemned the phraseology as code for teaching “Critical Race Theory,” or CRT.

The scheme would create new “American History and Civics Education programs” that would offer grants to supposedly “improve” the “quality of American history, civics, and government education.” That will be to help emphasize, among other ideas, the “vital role of diversity in our Nation’s democracy,” the text says, ironically failing to identify America’s actual form of government (a Republic).

In addition, the proposed regulation would create a “National Activities program” to “promote new and existing evidence-based strategies to encourage innovative American history, civics and government, and geography instruction, learning strategies, and professional development activities and programs for teachers, principals, or other school leaders.”

Yet another priority would be to fund projects in schools that “incorporate racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse perspectives into teaching and learning,” according to the document. It then goes on to cite “systemic racism” and the New York Times’ debunked 1619 Project as reasons why this is supposedly needed.

“Our Nation deserves an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda that matches the scale of the opportunities and challenges that we face,” the rule continues, quoting from an illegitimate executive decree issued by Biden purporting to underpin the scheme.

As part of this whole-of-government approach to fundamentally transforming America, “schools across the country are working to incorporate anti-racist practices into teaching and learning,” the Department of Education rule continues before quoting fringe racist activists such as Ibram X Kendi. Anti-racist, of course, is code for racist.

To get the federal money, government schools must have indoctrination programs that “take into account systemic marginalization, biases, inequities, and discriminatory policy and practice in American history,” the rule continues.

In other words, federal funding would begin flowing to new programs that would seek to further re-write U.S. history and civics. And then, it would go to brainwash teachers and “education” officials, for the purpose of ensuring that they indoctrinate their victims with this fraudulent view of America and its history.

Another key component of the rule is teaching children how to identify “misinformation.” However, in reading the text and understanding the extreme left-wing views of the bureaucrats behind them, it is clear that the plan is actually to teach children not to trust information that contradicts the official narrative. If they were truly identifying misinformation, The 1619 Project—debunked by the Times’ own fact checker—could have served as Exhibit A.

Critics are sounding the alarm. “This is the most significant move by the federal government to redefine the nature of state-funded public schools in U.S. history,” warned Kimberly Hermann, general counsel for the public-interest law firm Southeastern Legal Foundation in Atlanta.

In a widely cited analysis published by PJ Media about the proposed rule, she warned of the dangerous implications. “The initial goal is the indoctrination of young minds, but the long view is to aggregate power behind an alien political worldview that fed the dehumanizing machines of the Soviet Union and communist China,” Hermann said.

This Communist Chinese-style weaponization of government schools to teach fake history and racial resentment is going to lead to tragic consequences for individuals, families, and all of society. However, every parent can and must take urgent steps to protect their children now — and that means getting them out of the government’s indoctrination centers immediately.

This article was originally published by FreedomProject.com.