Chinese Translation – 中文翻译

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

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

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

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

*WARNING: VIDEOS CONTAIN OFFENSIVE MATERIAL*

What kind of twisted person makes a YouTube video in which she tells two five-year-old girls and two five-year-old boys that as a “child,” she “questioned” her sexuality and that she watched the movie Nell multiple times in order to see actress Jodie Foster naked?

Well, that’s just what childish, 35-year-old, Canadian television personality and mother of two, Jessi Cruikshank, recently did. Cruikshank views “gay” pride month as a teachable moment to persuade very young, impressionable children that sexual deviance is fun, funny, and worthy of support and celebration.

In a clownish, polka-dotted outfit and surrounded by rainbow balloons, she quizzes these five-year-olds on their understanding of homosexuality, “pride” month, the importance of affirming homosexuality, and the meaning of the term “gay icons”—you know, people like Neil Patrick Harris, Ricky Martin, Lady Gaga, Anderson Cooper, and Jodie Foster, all of whom she lists for the children. Cruikshank tells them that “gay pride” is a celebration of “sexual diversity,” a concept young children have no capacity to understand.

Of course, Cruikshank doesn’t care whether they can understand it because her goal is not understanding. Her goal is indoctrination. Neither does she have any intention of sharing with them that her views are a-historical, arguable, and subversive.

Rather, with a mind shrouded in darkness, she wallows in perverse delight that that these little ones know the terms “gay,” “lesbian,” “transgender,” and “bisexual.” She shows her delight in one little girl’s positive response to the idea of how “cool” it would be to be raised in a fatherless home, cheering her on, saying “Yeah…. so many advantages!”

Cruikshank feeds children putrid dogma and then shamelessly posts her pernicious effort on the Internet for the world to see.

While anyone with a moral compass will be repelled by Cruikshank’s perverse ploy, Minnesota librarians are likely rejoicing. Three public libraries in St. Paul are hosting “drag hours,” at which drag queens (i.e., men who masquerade as women) and drag kings (i.e., women who masquerade as men) will confuse and corrupt preschoolers.

Here are two of the bad lip-syncing, cross-dressing adult men these taxpayer-funded libraries are bringing in to propagandize children:

And here’s one of the cross-dressing women:

The libraries advertise these events as “Suitable” for “Adult, Baby, Preschool, School Age, Teen, Toddler,” urging people of all ages to “Come meet some fabulous drag queens and kings at the library! They will read stories, sing songs, and strut their stuff for an over-the-top story hour.”

These “drag hours” are rationalized as a way to promote “acceptance and inclusion,” to “break boundaries and explore creativity,” to “embrace our differences” and to “share who we are with the world.”

Just attach terms that elicit good feelings to deviant acts—terms like “acceptance,” “inclusion,” and “creativity”—and abracadabra, deviance is normalized and even celebrated.

In the service of acceptance, inclusion, and sharing, maybe next year St. Paul libraries could invite some sex-workers or dominatrices to read picture books about empowerment and embracing to toddlers.

Thinking people know there’s nothing intrinsically good about the acts of accepting, including, or creating, and boundaries are often very good things essential to sustaining the public good.

We can accept, include, and create valuable, worthy phenomena, and we can accept, include, and create sordid phenomena that debase and harm.

Boundaries help to rein in the all too often disordered impulses of fallen humans, thereby protecting children and cultivating a climate conducive to human flourishing.

Some “differences” in human behavior should be embraced, and some should be condemned and rejected.

Some behaviors should be shared with the world because they reflect that which is good, true, and beautiful. Some behaviors should never see the light of day because they reflect evil, lies, and ugliness.

Before inviting cross-dressers to “entertain” toddlers, these Minnesota libraries had to have concluded first that cross-dressing is a phenomenon worthy of being accepted, included, embraced, and shared.

I guess if “progressives” can’t kill children in the womb, they’ll kill them—body, mind, heart, and soul—afterwards.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Revision-of-Accepting-Including-Embracing-and-Sharing-Deviance.mp3

IFI works diligently to serve the Christian community in Illinois with email alerts, video reports, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences and cultural commentaries. We do not accept government funds nor do we run those aggravating popup ads to generate funds.  We depend solely on the support of readers like you.

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  We need your support, and are deeply grateful for those who stand with.

The “sweet” young man who killed two people, and then himself, in a Maryland shopping mall on January 25 was a pothead.

But the police revelation that the killer mentions “using marijuana” in a diary has been played down by the media, which in recent months have seemed almost ecstatic about the legalization of the drug in Colorado. President Obama, a one-time heavy user, recently called the drug safer than alcohol.

The link between marijuana and mental illness, documented in the medical literature, is not a popular subject for journalists who themselves may use pot and be reluctant to tell the truth about high potency marijuana and its powerful, psychoactive component.

Just after the murders, the killer, Darion Aguilar, was described in a Washington Post story as a “good kid” with no criminal record who was perceived as “harmless.” His mother called him a “gentle, sweet kid.”

But now the story has dramatically changed.

“Howard County police said on Twitter that Darion Aguilar wrote of using marijuana, expressed ‘thoughts of wanting to die’ and even said he was ‘ready to die,’” reported The Washington Post. But the marijuana reference was buried in the fifth paragraph, even though it helps explain why a “harmless” young man would turn into a psychotic monster.

The police Twitter account reported that Aguilar, in his writings, “indicates he thought he needed a mental health professional, but never told his family. He also mentions using marijuana.”

In Maryland, where the mall killings took place, the Marijuana Policy Project is pushing legal dope. State Senate President Thomas V. “Mike” Miller has endorsed legalization of marijuana and even remarked about taking a “toke” for a toothache.

Less than a week after Aguilar brought a shotgun into the shopping mall in Columbia, Maryland, state police arrested another doper, George Hong Sik Chin, as he threatened employees at the Tumi luggage store in Westfield Montgomery Mall in Bethesda, Maryland. “Police searched his truck and found a small amount of marijuana and a pipe, and drug charges were pending,” The Baltimore Sun reported.

Police said he was wearing camouflage, acting disorderly, and threatening to kill employees of the luggage store. Another account said he was “babbling incoherently.”

Nevertheless, the Marijuana Policy Project, which conducts fundraisers at the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles, posted five billboards surrounding the stadium that hosted the Super Bowl on Sunday, claiming that “marijuana is safer than both alcohol and playing professional football.” This claim echoes statements made by President Barack Obama, a one-time member of the “Choom Gang” in Hawaii, and a heavy user of marijuana.

U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), during a January 29 Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing of the Justice Department, questioned Attorney General Eric Holder about Obama’s recent statement to The New Yorker that marijuana isn’t more dangerous than alcohol:

Sessions: …did the President make or conduct any medical or scientific survey before he waltzed into The New Yorker and opined, contrary to the position of attorney generals and presidents universally prior to that? That marijuana is not as I’ve quoted him? Did he study any of this data before he made that statement?

Holder: Well, I don’t know, but I think, as I said…

Sessions: Did he consult with you before he made that statement?

Holder:  No, we didn’t talk about that.

Sessions: Well, what about this study from the American Medical Association, October of 2013? ‘Heavy (inaudible) use in adolescents causes persistent impairments in neurocognitive performance and I.Q. And use is associated with increased rates of anxiety, mood and psychotic thought disorders,’ close quote. Or this report from Northwestern University in December—last December. Quote: ‘The study found that marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory, and that chronic marijuana use may lead to brain changes resembling schizophrenia. The study also reported that the younger the person starts using marijuana, the worst the effect.’ Would you dispute those reports?

Holder: I have not read the reports, but I don’t—if they are—if they are, in fact, from the AMA, I’m sure they are good reports. But that is exactly why one of our eight enforcement priorities is the prevention of marijuana to minors.

Sessions: Well, Lady Gaga said she’s addicted to it, and it is not harmless. She’s been addicted to it. Patrick Kennedy—former Congressman Kennedy—said the President is wrong on this subject. I just think it’s a huge issue. I hope that you will talk with the President—you’re close to him—and begin to push back—pull back from this position that I think is going to be adverse to the health of America.

Liberal commentators laughed at Senator Sessions’ reference to Lady Gaga being addicted to marijuana, but in fact she said she was “smoking up to 15-20 marijuana cigarettes a day,” allegedly to deal with various ailments.  She has been a longtime Obama supporter.

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

Written by Austin Ruse

Matthew Shepard was the winsome young homosexual in Laramie, Wyoming who in October 1998 was tortured, killed, and left hanging grotesquely from a fence. He was discovered almost a day later and later died in the hospital from his horrific wounds.

On the night of October 6, Shepard met “two strangers” in the Fireside Lounge in Laramie. The two men offered Shepard a ride home but instead drove him to a remote area, robbed him, beat him with pistols, and left him splayed on a fence.

Cops found the bloody gun along with Shepard’s shoes and wallet in the truck of the two men — Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson.

McKinney and Henderson claimed the “gay panic” defense, that they freaked out when Shepard came onto them sexually and killed him in a rage. They made other claims, too, but were convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

Almost immediately Shepard became a secular saint, and his killing became a kind of gay Passion Play where he suffered and died for the cause of homosexuality against the growing homophobia and hatred of gay America.

Indeed, a Mathew Shepard industry grew rapidly with plays and foundations along with state and even national hate crimes legislation named for him. Rock stars wrote songs about him, including Elton John and Melissa Etheridge. Lady Gaga performed John Lennon’s “Imagine” and changed the lyrics to include Shepard.

Thanks to a new book by an award winning gay journalist we now know that much of this narrative turns out to be false, little more than gay hagiography.

As gay journalist Aaron Hicklin, writing in The Advocate asks, “How do people sold on one version of history react to being told that the facts are slippery — that thinking of Shepard’s murder as a hate crime does not mean it was a hate crime? And how does it color our understanding of such a crime if the perpetrator and victim not only knew each other but also had sex together, bought drugs from one another, and partied together?”

This startling revelation comes in The Book of Matt to be published next week by investigative journalist Stephen Jiminez, who over the course of years interviewed over 100 people including Shepard’s friends, friends of the killers, and the killers themselves.

According to The Advocate, one of the premier gay publications in the country, Jiminez “amassed enough anecdotal evidence to build a persuasive case that Shepard’s sexuality was, if not incidental, certain less central than popular consensus had lead us to believe.”

Even before Shepard died, two of his friends were peddling the narrative that he died at the hands of vicious homophobes. Within days the gay establishment latched onto what would drive the hate crimes story for years to come; even now, the Laramie Project, a stage play about the killing is performed all over the country. Indeed, it will be performed next week at Ford’s Theater in Washington DC.

But what really happened to Matthew Shepard?

He was beaten, tortured, and killed by one or both of the men now serving life sentences. But it turns out, according to Jiminez, that Shepard was a meth dealer himself and he was friends and sex partners with the man who led in his killing. Indeed, his killer may have killed him because Shepard allegedly came into possession of a large amount of methamphetamine and refused to give it up.

The book also shows that Shepard’s killer was on a five-day meth binge at the time of the killing.

As to be expected, Matthew Shepard Inc. is rallying to denounce the new narrative that his homosexuality had little or nothing to do with his murder. The Matthew Shepard Foundation released this statement:

Attempts now to rewrite the story of this hate crime appear to be based on untrustworthy sources, factual errors, rumors and innuendo rather than the actual evidence gathered by law enforcement and presented in a court of law. We do not respond to innuendo, rumor or conspiracy theories. Instead we recommit ourselves to honoring Matthew’s memory, and refuse to be intimidated by those who seek to tarnish it. We owe that to the tens of thousands of donors, activists, volunteers, and allies to the cause of equality who have made our work possible.

The agenda of the sexual left lives on lies. As we all know now, the back-story that brought us Roe v. Wade was a lie. And here we find the Matthew Shepard story was also a lie.

The sexual left approves of such lies because they get to what they consider to be an underlying truth. The author of The Advocate piece writes, “There are valuable reasons for telling certain stories in a certain way at pivotal times, but that doesn’t mean we have to hold on to them once they’ve outlived their usefulness.”

This article first appeared at the Brietbart.com blog. You can see the original article and comments HERE.   

While preaching to the choir at his April 12 Nuclear Security Summit, President Obama revealed his perspective on America’s matchless military might: “Whether we like it or not,” he said, “we (the United States) remain a dominant military superpower.” That the president would even imagine “we” might not “like it,” betrays his fixed membership within that “progressive” camp of self-loathing “or nots.” (Mr. Obama’s anti-Americanism is showing.)

Indeed, if there were ever a question whether Democrats are woefully weak on national defense, that question was cleared up on Tuesday. Taking direction from Lady Gaga (evidently Mr. Obama’s new national defense czar) Senate Majority Leader and chief surrender monkey Harry “the war is lost” Reid cynically attempted, but fortunately failed, to ram through a repeal of Section 654,Title 10, USC – the law prohibiting homosexual conduct within the ranks of the armed services.  Just two Democrats – Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincolnof Arkansas – voted against repeal.

Often mislabeled “don’t ask, don’t tell,” this law has been in force since 1993, when it was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. The legislation simply codified the military’s objective finding that “homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” That finding remains to this day.

Although the strict policy barring homosexual behavior in the U.S. military has been in effect from our nation’s inception, Congress nonetheless found it necessary to codify the prohibition after President Clintonannounced his intent to homosexualize the armed services. To him, the military was merely a petri dish for San Francisco-style social experimentation.

More recently, Mr. Obama, as did Mr. Clinton before him, announced similar plans to compel military leaders to permit self-described “gays” and lesbians to serve openly: This is in spite of the fact that nearly all top brass, in all branches of the armed services, vehemently oppose the move.

Even Gen. James F. Amos, the president’s recent pick to take command of the U.S. Marine Corps, testified before the Senate just days ago that reaction among Marines has been “predominantly negative.” He understandably fears “the potential disruption to cohesion that may be caused by significant change during a period of extended combat operations.” It stands to reason that in the precise game of war, even a slight disruption in unit cohesion or troop morale can spell the difference between life and death.

But none of this matters to the Obama-Reid-Lady Gaga triumvirate. They’ve somehow concluded, in the face of significant evidence to the contrary, that 234 years of American history, nearly all of our military’s top leaders and the vast majority of boots on the ground simply have it wrong.

Madame Gen. Gaga summed up the trio’s battle plan rather succinctly at a recent homosexualist rally for repeal: “Our new law is called ‘If you don’t like it, go home!'” she observed. Those 12 words are perhaps the most perceptive ever to grace the dirty diva’s foul-mouthed lips.

In fact, according to a 2008 Military Times poll, Gaga’s got it right. When asked the question “If the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is overturned and gays are allowed to serve openly, how would you respond?” almost 10 percent of active-duty personnel replied: “I would not re-enlist or extend my service.” Another 14 percent warned: “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.”

Of course, the potential exodus of up to 24 percent of current military personnel from our all-volunteer services would be devastating to national security. But when those holding the reins of government function from an egalitarian, globalist, Euro-socialist worldview, we shouldn’t be surprised that national security takes a backseat to political correctness.

While in the interest of promoting sanctimonious notions of “tolerance” and “diversity,” we dress up our military like Poochie poodle in a pink sweater, Iranian, North Korean and Chinese pit bulls bark at the gate.

While we work to “gay”-down our historically unparalleled fighting force to mirror those of Canada, the Netherlands and Switzerland, our nation’s single-minded enemies ramp up intense combat training and military spending.

Progressives have had their fun, but the grown-ups are pulling into the driveway. Defense-minded conservatives must take charge in November. If they don’t, America’s historic stand as the world’s dominant military superpower may indeed fall.