In a free society, why should only one political side dominate the media? Yet social media, the networks, the cable channels, newspapers, and satellite programming are all completely dominated by the left. Recently, we saw quite a kerfuffle when DirecTV, owned by giant AT&T, decided to ignominiously drop Newsmax-TV from their lineup.

AT&T did the same a year ago to a much smaller conservative outlet, One America News (OAN). Why does it seem that the corporate decisions of companies like AT&T always push in only one political direction?

Numerous leaders have spoken against this censorship by the left against Newsmax, including:

• Dennis Prager
• Mike Huckabee
• Florida Governor Ron DeSantis
• Speaker of the U.S. House Kevin McCarthy
• U.S. Senator Ted Cruz
• Actors Jon Voight and Kevin Sorbo

Many are calling for a boycott of DirectTV. Others are calling for Congressional hearings because of the potential impact on our political debate.

My big question is: Why must the left strangle what few conservative voices are heard on the other side?

When the founders of America produced the Constitution, a frequent criticism was that it did not spell out specific rights. So the founders agreed that if the Constitution were to be ratified, they would attach a Bill of Rights. These were the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution.

The First Amendment deals, first and foremost, with freedom of religion. But other rights enumerated there include the freedom of the press and free speech.

AT&T is a corporation. It is not a part of the government. But these companies wield a great deal of political power. Why are they using it to essentially stifle free speech?

There is no question that the mainstream media, the legacy media, the major networks, and so on present news from a skewed and biased perspective. National Public Radio (NPR), which receives government funding, has a program called “All Things Considered.” I remember whenever I would hear that title, I would think to myself—“Yeah, All Things Considered, from a leftist perspective.”

The founders envisioned a free society with a robust and free press. But today’s mainstream media is dominated by the leftist perspective, with only Fox News offering a significant counterweight.

Thankfully, even under dire conditions, there is always an alternative media. In the days of the American War for Independence, there were Committees of Correspondence, disseminating information to the 13 colonies contrary to royal-controlled sources.

There are different skirmishes in the battle over free speech, and some speech of more eternal significance than others. But let me use an analogy from the history of Christianity.

When the Apostles of Jesus set out to proclaim His saving message in first century Rome, the overwhelming power of the state was dead set against them. But God used them to eventually win over many converts. One of the ways was through letters that were written largely in prison.

Ultimately, there is a battle between good and evil, and the proclamation of the truth is often at the heart of that battle.

As the hymn “Once to Every Man and Nation” puts it, “Though the cause of evil prosper, yet the truth alone is strong. Though [truth’s] portion be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong, yet that scaffold sways the future.” God is watching and making sure that truth will prevail, which it will—even if for a time, times, and a half a time, it suffers setbacks.

Of course, this is not to equate a commercial network like Newsmax with the Gospel. But it’s beyond question that elite interests often suppress truth wherever it comes from. I’m grateful to live at a time where there is readily available an alternative media. I’m sure if some elitists in our culture had their way, they would over-regulate the Internet, talk radio, satellite programming, Christian broadcasting, and so on, to make them essentially toothless—as sometimes happens in other countries.

When Elon Musk bought Twitter late last year, he suffered the ire of many on the left, as he opened up the Twitter files and exposed a great deal of censorship against conservative speech. Musk tweeted in late November: “This is a battle for the future of civilization. If free speech is lost even in America, tyranny is all that lies ahead.”

Dr. Richard Land, president emeritus of the Southern Evangelical Seminary, said of the left’s censorship of conservative speech in general: “They want to enforce conformity, they do not want to hear viewpoints, they want to stifle viewpoints that they disagree with. They’re acting like fascist Blackshirts….They can only get away with taking away our rights if we let them.”

Indeed, must the left strangle the flow of information? As the Bible notes: “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.”

This article was originally published at Jerrynewcombe.com.

After preaching at my home congregation Sunday morning, I got into my car in the church parking lot to check my voicemails and messages. One of my colleagues had sent me the link to his new article, which I decided to share with my Twitter followers. To my surprise, I discovered I was locked out of my account for 12 hours for violating Twitter Rules.

But what I had done? What was the violation? There was no further information, no link to file an appeal, and no reference to an offending tweet.

Several years ago, something similar happened to me, but Twitter subsequently apologized, explaining that they had misunderstood my tweet.

This time, I was left in the dark, forcing me to search online for a way to appeal the suspension.

Obviously, this was not a serious crisis, and like many other conservatives, I knew my time on Twitter might be limited. Still, I was wondering what offense I had committed.

Minutes later, I had my answer.

I was informed that I had been locked out my account for 12 hours because of this tweet, which had been posted on January 20: “Will I get punished by Twitter for saying that, in God’s sight, ‘Rachel’ Levine (nominated by Biden to be his assistant secretary for HHS) is a man?”

Yes, that was the offending tweet. It looks like Twitter answered my question!

When biological truth conflicts with transgender activism, biological truth is banned.

When biblical truth conflicts with transgender activism, biblical truth is banned.

There was nothing hateful in the tweet.

There was nothing that would incite violence.

I didn’t even “deadname” Levine, referring to him as “Richard.”

I simply stated the truth. In the sight of God, President Biden’s nominee for assistant secretary for Health and Human Services is a man.

Someone might challenge the statement, asking what gives me the right to speak for God.

Someone else might claim to have a different perspective on God’s point of view.

And, of course, an atheist would dispute the whole notion of God.

Fair enough. We can have those debates.

But to block me for this tweet? Really?

I read the Twitter Rules carefully.

Under the category of Safety are listed these sub-categories: Violence; Terrorism/violent extremism; Child sexual exploitation; Abuse/harassment; Hateful conduct; Suicide or self-harm; Sensitive media, including graphic violence and adult content; and Illegal or certain regulated goods or services.

Then I read the categories of Privacy and then Authenticity.

What rule had I violated? Where had I sinned? What was my transgression? (For John Zmirak’s brilliant, satirical self-confession, see here.)

Then I re-read the verbiage under “Hateful conduct,” which stated, “You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.”

So was that it? Was that my crime?

I dug down deeper into the rules, clicking the link for more information, which included this note (which, for some reason, used British English spelling):

“We recognise that if people experience abuse on Twitter, it can jeopardize their ability to express themselves. Research has shown that some groups of people are disproportionately targeted with abuse online. This includes; women, people of color, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual individuals, marginalized and historically underrepresented communities.”

So that must be it. By simply stating biological and biblical truth, I had “harassed” a transgender person. What else could it possibly be?

This led then to the next question. Why did it take Twitter four days to decide I was guilty?

My only guess is that on Saturday, former governor Mike Huckabee retweeted my article about Biden’s radical, trans-activist executive order, including my twitter handle in his tweet. And given the size of his Twitter following, the tweet got lots of attention. Did this, in turn, draw attention to my account, and then my tweet?

Either way, the end result was yet another example of Twitter’s leftist censorship.

Ironically, the Twitter Rules page states that,

“Twitter’s purpose is to serve the public conversation. Violence, harassment and other similar types of behavior discourage people from expressing themselves, and ultimately diminish the value of global public conversation. Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.”

In reality, Twitter is stifling public conversation and harassing people who believe things as basic as this: in God’s sight, a biological male remains a male, even when identifying as a female.

Not only so, but once again, we see how affirmation of radical transgender ideology trumps science, Scripture, and even common sense.

Perhaps I’ll get blocked the next time for saying that someone who identifies as a cat (or dog or dragon or the like) is actually a human? After all, wouldn’t therians (who believe in some way that they have an animal identity) fit in the class of “marginalized and historically underrepresented communities”?

And what about Twitter’s extraordinary double standards, as Bible-believing conservatives like me get bashed and mocked and cursed by the minute on these platforms, specifically for being who we are and believing what we believe, and that is somehow fine and dandy.

Over 15 years ago, when I began to warn that those who came out of the closet wanted to put us in the closet, I was roundly mocked. “That’s ridiculous,” I was told.

Who would have believed me if I said back then, “Social media platforms will block us for saying that a male who identifies as a female is actually a man in God’s sight”? Who would have believed that?

Levine may be a decent human being and a serious professional. But he is not a woman in God’s sight whether Twitter likes it or not.

In the end, Twitter may suspend me or block me (and countless others). But they cannot change the truth.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

In a stunning act of betrayal, Chick-fil-A’s charitable foundation, the Chick-fil-A Foundation, has announced it will no longer donate to the Salvation Army, Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA), or Paul Anderson Youth Home (PAYH). Though Chick-fil-A has not publicly acknowledged the reason for its betrayal, everyone knows what it is. Chick-fil-A is attempting to curry favor with the “LGBTQ+” community that is shredding our social fabric. This policy shift constitutes a cowardly betrayal of Chick-fil-A’s Christian ethos and its Christian customers who have stood by Chick-fil-A through all its trials at the hands of legions of supporters of sexual deviance. #LoveofMoney

Broods of vipers identifying as apostles of justice, equality, tolerance, diversity, inclusivity, and compassion have been protesting and maligning Chick-fil-A since 2012 when Dan Truett Cathy, chairman and chief executive officer, made some public statements in an interview with the Baptist Press supporting true marriage and opposing the legal recognition of homosexual unions as marriages. After homosexuals got wind of Cathy’s theologically orthodox and unremarkable statements, some part of hell broke loose and raged against Chick-fil-A. Fortunately for Cathy and Chick-fil-A, Christians turned out en masse all across the country to show their support with their time and money for Cathy’s stand for truth.

And this is how Cathy and Chick-fil-A repay them.

Chick-fil-A is the wildly popular fast-food franchise started by devout Southern Baptist Truett Cathy in 1967 and known for being closed on Sundays “so that … employees” can “set aside one day to rest and worship if they choose.” Dan Cathy once said that Chick-fil-a’s “corporate purpose” was “to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us.”

Some feared a crack in Chick-fil-A’s Christian edifice would spread when a year after the 2012 attack by homosexuals, Cathy expressed his regret for his public statements about marriage:

Every leader goes through different phases of maturity, growth and development and it helps by (recognizing) the mistakes that you make. … And you learn from those mistakes. If not, you’re just a fool. I’m thankful that I lived through it and I learned a lot from it.

Does Cathy today believe that ceasing to support fine organizations like the Salvation Army, FCA, and PAYH signifies “maturity” and “growth”? Does he believe the reason for this decision signifies maturity and growth? If so, in what specific ways? What criteria does he use to determine maturity and growth?

A press statement released by Chick-fil-A includes this mealy-mouthed corporate-speak:

Starting in 2020, the Chick-fil-A is introducing a more focused giving approach to provide additional clarity and impact with the causes it supports.

In an interview with Bisnow, Tim Tassopoulos, Chick-fil-A president and chief operation officer doubled down on clarity:

“There’s no question we know that, as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are. … There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A, and we thought we needed to be clear about our message.”

With a degree of irony only a hipster could fully appreciate, Chick-fil-A cloaks the reason for abandoning the Salvation Army, FCA, and PAYH in the rhetoric of “clarity.”

When wealthy and powerful men and women—who should be role models—demonstrate the kind of dishonesty and cowardice Cathy and his board just demonstrated, not only do the little people feel betrayed but also some lose hope. Some will wonder why they—with scant resources—should stand unequivocally for Christ and his kingdom when millionaires who are safe and secure with their buckets of ducats are unwilling to do so.

The betrayal must have been particularly painful for the staff and board of trustees of PAYH, a ministry that strives “to provide a Christ-centered, holistic, and therapeutic approach towards transforming the lives of young men ages 16-21” believing that “There is no single aspect of a young man’s development as important as his spiritual life.”

PAYH, which was started by famous weightlifter Paul Anderson and Dan Cathy’s father Truett Cathy in 1961, “exists to help transform the lives of troubled young men and their families” by 1. Planting God’s word in their lives and discipling them through mentoring and modeling, 2. Providing therapeutic counseling and substance abuse treatment, 3. Supplying a fully-accredited college preparatory high school and vocational training, and 4. Supporting our graduates long-term through our transition program.”

Cathy and the company his father founded have abandoned their nearly six decades-long support of PAYH that strives to raise up young men in the way they should go, and they are doing so in deference to the unholy desires of homosexuals whose ideology is destroying the lives of young men.

In just one hour on Monday, conservatives Rod Dreher, Mike Huckabee, Dana Loesch, Allie Stuckey, and Matt Walsh, all tweeted condemnations of Chick-fil-A’s decision. You know who liked it? Zach Stafford, editor-in-chief of the homosexual magazine The Advocate who tweeted, “THE GAYS HAVE WON.” That should tell us everything we need to know.

Add this to the growing list of ways Christians are affected by the “LGBT” ideology—you know, the ideology we were promised repeatedly would affect no one, no how, no way. #LyingLiarsLie.

“LGBTQ+” ideologues and their sycophants are going to see to it that owning a business—including even a teeny tiny business—or having a job will be conditioned on affirming homosexual acts and faux-marriage as good. Wake up, Christians, the persecution is getting real.

Meanwhile as corporations and individuals cave to prideful, despotic homosexuals, cross-sex pretenders, and other assorted “queers,” money going to pernicious pagan ministries like the Human Rights Campaign; the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network; and GLAAD flows like water in the Ganges River.

Take ACTION: If you would like to express your views on Chick-fil-A’s decision, you can contact them at (866) 232-2040 or leave your feedback on website comment section HERE.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Chick-fil-A-Betrays-Principles-and-Faithful-Customers.mp3

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

-and, please-

Homosexual head honcho in the country music industry, Jason Owen, threw a tantrum over the appointment of Mike Huckabee to serve on the board of the philanthropic arm of the Country Music Association (CMA). Owen was furious that Huckabee holds the theologically orthodox belief that homosexuality is a sin and that Huckabee supports the NRA.

Owen and his equally intolerant allies were successful in forcing Huckabee to step down less than 24 hours after his appointment, with Owen threatening to take his money and his musicians and go home if Huckabee stayed:

“It is with a heavy heart that I must let you know moving forward, Sandbox and Monument will no longer support the CMA Foundation in any way (this includes everyone we represent collectively) considering the heartbreaking news shared today regarding Mike Huckabee appointee/elected to the CMA Foundation. Further, we find it hard to support the organization as a whole as a result. As you may know I have a child and two on the way. This man has made it clear that my family is not welcome in his America. And the CMA has opened their arms to him, making him feel welcome and relevant. Huckabee speaks of the sort of things that would suggest my family is morally beneath his and uses language that has a profoundly negative impact upon young people all across this country. Not to mention how harmful and damaging his deep involvement with the NRA is. What a shameful choice. I will not participate in any organization that elevates people like this to positions that amplify their sick voices. This was a detrimentally poor choice by the CMA and it’s [sic] leaders.

I only wish the best for you and I know how hard you work for the foundation but a grossly offensive decision like this only makes your job harder and diminishes the foundation’s purpose.

In Owen’s perverse world, homosexuality and intentionally motherless and fatherless children are in. The Bible, the Constitution, and diversity are out.

Let’s not forget that it was Jesus who established marriage as a man-woman union—not Mike Huckabee. While Owen and his allies may not be theologically orthodox Christians, many Americans—including many country music fans—are. And let’s not forget that for theologically orthodox Christians, their faith is as central to their identities as homoeroticism is to the identities of “gays” and “lesbians.”

Owen believes that those who express the theologically orthodox Christian view that marriage is a male-female union are also saying that homosexual couples are “not welcome in America.” So, does Owen apply that principle consistently?

When Owen says it’s “grossly offensive” and “shameful” for an organization to hire someone who holds theologically orthodox biblical views on marriage, does he make theologically orthodox Christians feel “not welcome in America”? Are his words, therefore, “grossly offensive,” “shameful,” and “sick”?

What about all the homosexuals who, before Obergefelle, said that marriage is the union of two people who love each other? Are they guilty of making polyamorists who would like to marry feel their families are “not welcome in America”? Are their voices “sick”?

What about men and women who experience “Genetic Sexual Attraction” and are in love with close blood relatives (remember, love is love)? Is it “grossly offensive” and “shameful” to express opposition to adult consensual incest?

More broadly, is helping people feel good about all their life choices some sort of moral principle that subsumes all other moral claims? Does everyone have an obligation to refrain from expressing moral propositions with which others may disagree? If so, does that apply to Owen and his ideological co-conspirators?

Like all homosexual tacticians, Owen appeals to emotions by referring to his children, saying that Huckabee’s beliefs suggest Owen’s “family is morally beneath” Huckabee’s.” Huckabee’s beliefs concern types of family structures, and yes, theologically orthodox Christians believe that a family headed by two men or two women in a homoerotic relationship is morally inferior to a family headed by a man and woman. That idea too comes from Scripture, which speaks in unequivocal and plain language about homoerotic activity, marriage, the roles of mothers and fathers, and the needs of children. If Owen has a beef with those beliefs, he should take it up with the Almighty.

Singer and lesbian Chely Wright self-righteously chastises Huckabee: “[Y]oung people will be shattered, yet again, to hear someone with so much power saying the things you’re saying about who God made them to be.” It’s preposterous to claim that God “made” anyone to desire that which He condemns. I don’t know where Wright gets her theology, but it’s not from Scripture.

So, what’s the end game for those disciples of diversity and teachers of tolerance like Owen, Wright, and their allies? Do they want to rob theologically orthodox Christians of their ability to make a living? Do they want to impose a religious test for holding office? Do they want the state to take children away from theologically orthodox Christians? Do they want the state to prohibit theologically orthodox Christians from adopting? Do they want to nullify the speech rights of theologically orthodox Christians?

Word to Owen et al.: Love is inseparable from truth. If it’s true that homosexual activity is immoral, if it’s true that marriage has a nature central to which is sexual complementarity, if it’s true that children have a right to be raised by a mother and a father whenever possible, then expressing those views is not only permissible but also good. If the Bible is true, the ideology of Owen and Wright will have a “profoundly negative impact upon young people”—eternally.

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

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

Homosexual head honcho in the country music industry, Jason Owen, threw a tantrum over the appointment of Mike Huckabee to serve on the board of the philanthropic arm of the Country Music Association (CMA). Owen was furious that Huckabee holds the theologically orthodox belief that homosexuality is a sin and that Huckabee supports the NRA.

Read MORE

U.S. Republican House Speaker John Boehner (OH), who came under fire from conservatives for resisting the creation of a Benghazi select committee until the scandal got too big to ignore, is under fire from conservatives once again. On Saturday he raised funds for Carl DeMaio, a gay Republican congressional candidate at the center of a scandal to turn the GOP into a gay-friendly political party like the Obama Democrats.

DeMaio, charged with sexual harassment and exhibitionism, is one of the Republican “young guns” getting official Republican money and support. But he has also enjoyed the strong support of Fox News personalities, especially Richard Grenell, a Fox News contributor and homosexual activist who advises his campaign.

The Conservative Review calls DeMaio a “deviant” and wonders whether the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) vetted DeMaio before the Republican Party funneled $1 million into his campaign.

DeMaio probably never anticipated that being labeled “the candidate to watch” in the GOP would turn out this way. His accuser, former staffer Todd Bosnich, said in an exclusive interview with CNN that he came into DeMaio’s office and saw him openly masturbating.

The alleged misconduct went much further than this, however. CNN reported Bosnich said DeMaio “would find him alone and make inappropriate advances, massaging and kissing his neck and groping him.” On another occasion, Bosnich said DeMaio “grabbed my crotch.”

DeMaio, a former member of the San Diego City Council, denies all the charges. But he reportedly had a similar problem when he was accused of masturbating in a San Diego City Hall restroom.

Although House Speaker Boehner is under fire for supporting the controversial candidate, the growing scandal pits two news organizations, Fox and CNN, against each other.

Back in January, Fox News had run a story about DeMaio preparing to “make history” in the congressional race, while Dana Perino, co-host of the channel’s “The Five,” hailed DeMaio for being in a “committed relationship” with another man and the first candidate “to feature his partner in campaign literature.”

“Full disclosure,” said Perino. “I am a former employee of the San Diego City Council, where I worked with Ric Grenell, now again a colleague of mine at Fox News Channel, and who currently consults on the DeMaio campaign.”

Despite this conflict of interest, DeMaio appeared on Fox News with Martha MacCallum and declared, “I don’t think either political party ought to be talking about social issues.”

Yet, his campaign website declares that on social issues:

• Carl DeMaio supports “marriage equality.”
• Carl DeMaio supports medical marijuana…
• Carl DeMaio supports a woman’s right to choose…

Boehner’s fundraising for the controversial candidate comes as prominent San Diego Christians have announced they will cast a “tactical vote” against DeMaio and in support of his Democratic opponent, Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA).

The letter from the Christian leaders, issued before the sex scandal broke wide open, says DeMaio not only supports homosexual “marriage,” but abortion rights. He supports “medical marijuana” and is reported to be open to the idea of legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes.

He also accepts the Obama line on so-called climate change, having declared that “human activity has an impact on the climate,” and that “we must continue to invest in research to determine what is happening, why, and what we can do to mitigate it.”

The Christian leaders declared, “DeMaio is an avowed LGBTQ activist (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning). The LGBTQ movement believes in a genderless society, where God’s order of male and female is denied. Their goal is much greater than that. It is to impose their views upon us, with the intent of abolishing our rights to freedom of religious conscience, coercing us to affirm homosexual practice and to forever alter the historic, natural definition of marriage.”

Despite the sex scandal charges against DeMaio, Boehner and the National Republican Congressional Committee are still in support of this “new generation Republican” candidate.

However, former Arkansas Governor and Republican pro-family leader Mike Huckabee is threatening to leave the GOP over the issue. “If the Republicans want to lose guys like me—and a whole bunch of still God-fearing Bible-believing people—go ahead and just abdicate on this issue, and while you’re at it, go ahead and say abortion doesn’t matter, either,” he said.

CNN’s coverage of the issue has noted the relationship between DeMaio and Fox News contributor Grenell.

After interviewing Bosnich on camera, CNN said it “repeatedly tried to get detailed answers from DeMaio’s campaign,” but that a conference call “was led by hired consultant Richard Grenell, a former Mitt Romney presidential campaign spokesperson and Fox News contributor. Grenell refused to answer questions and accused CNN of being on a partisan witch hunt.”

Grenell is an official of Capitol Media Partners and an open homosexual who appears frequently on Fox News. His areas of expertise include “crisis communications,” and his website declares, “Capitol Media Partners has a proven track record of working with journalists, editors and executives to mitigate developing stories and shape ongoing news coverage. We have extensive contacts and relationships with a variety of national and international reporters across industries and beats.”

But the crisis has been building for DeMaio and Boehner.

CNN noted, “This is not the first time DeMaio has been accused of sexually inappropriate behavior. Last year, a fellow city councilman, Ben Hueso, said he twice caught DeMaio masturbating in a semi-private city hall restroom accessible only to city officials.”

The Wall Street Journal previously reported that then-Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) had given DeMaio $10,000; Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) contributed $5,000; and Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) had kicked in $1,000.

Meanwhile, national pro-family leaders have sent a letter to Boehner and other Republican officials opposing official GOP support for candidates like DeMaio who are openly homosexual or pro-abortion.

The letter, signed by Brian S. Brown, President, National Organization for Marriage; Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council; and Tom Minnery, President, CitizenLink, said, “The undersigned organizations are writing to inform you that we actively oppose the election of Republican House of Representative candidates Carl DeMaio (CA-52) and Richard Tisei (MA-6) and Oregon U.S. Senate candidate Monica Wehby and will mount a concerted effort to urge voters to refuse to cast ballots for them in the November election.”

Richard Tisei is a homosexual Republican running for the U.S. House from Massachusetts, while Monica Wehby is a GOP Senate candidate from Oregon who has endorsed homosexual marriage.

The letter said:

This decision was reached only after having exhausted all attempts to convince the Republican leadership of the grave error it was making in advancing candidates who do not hold core Republican beliefs and, in fact, are working to actively alienate the Republican base. We believe that Republican candidates should embrace the full spectrum of conservative principles—economic, national security and social issues—that have defined our party since President Reagan led us to a transformative victory. While we acknowledge that a national party must accommodate varying points of view on matters of prudence, we also believe a party must stand for certain core principles that it expects its candidates to defend.

Referring to the National Republican Congressional Committee supporting candidates like DeMaio, Tony Perkins has said it appears that “some of the GOP want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory” this November.

Sounding optimistic, candidates DeMaio and Tisei have formed a joint fundraising committee called the Equality Leadership Fund, and plan to “build a foundation for other gay Republicans to use in their campaigns for office.”

But that depends on Republicans voting for and electing these candidates.

Pro-family advocate Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth says Republican “big shots” have failed to take into account  the number of social conservatives who will “walk away from the GOP or simply not vote,” as result of the party nominating candidates like DeMaio.

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

Why We Must Defend Religious Liberty

In Appleton, Wisconsin, Marge Christensen labors tirelessly to share the Gospel. In her eighties, Marge is active in her church and has been promoting biblical citizenship for more than twenty years. She and her husband are ambassadors for the Alliance Defending Freedom and have been working lately to encourage churches to promote marriage with greater boldness.

Recently, Marge shared with a colleague of mine that churches do not seem to sense the urgency of teaching on matters of marriage, family and especially religious liberty.

Folks, that’s a problem.

A friend of mine, you may have heard of him, Rick Santorum, shares Marge’s concerns. After a long and illustrious career in politics, Rick has taken over as chief executive of EchoLight Studios with the goal of bringing top-notch and redemptive media to a darkened culture.

EchoLight’s latest documentary film, “One Generation Away,” draws its inspiration from Ronald Reagan’s famous inaugural address as California’s 33rd governor. In it, Reagan warned: “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”

Several of the cases examined in the movie are familiar to us. There’s the decades-long battle to remove the large cross from the Mt. Soledad Veteran’s Memorial in San Diego. And then there’s the coercive healthcare mandate that sought to force businesses like Hobby Lobby to violate Christian conscience and pay for abortion-inducing drugs.

But what makes “One Generation Away” so interesting and valuable is that it interviews leaders on both sides of the issue. Along with a great cast of stalwart defenders of religious freedom like Mike Huckabee and Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation, you’ll hear from members of the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State—people who are leading the crusade to restrict religious expression in public life.

And as I myself say in the film (and yes, I was privileged to take a part in it), to preserve our freedom we have to know what our liberties are and what they aren’t. And we have to defend them—and that requires knowing our opponents’ arguments and intentions.

Part of the task will be reminding our fellow Christians that we believers have full rights of citizenship. Too many of us have bought into the idea that religion is purely a private matter. God forbid! As Vincent Munoz of Notre Dame said so well in the film, “Just as other citizens can bring their convictions into the public square, religious citizens can and should bring their convictions into the public square. Don’t you lose your rights because you’re religious!”

Folks, the lesson of “One Generation Away” is that vigilance in defending our freedoms is not a one-time task, but a sacred trust that we pass from generation to generation.

This is why I hope you will get your church to host a screening of “One Generation Away”—and please get your friends and neighbors to attend. Come to BreakPoint.org and click on this commentary. We’ll link you to the movie’s website so you can learn how your church can premiere the movie at no cost to you or your congregation.

Folks, we’ve got to do something. And this is something we can do. I hope you’ll do it.

This article was originally posted at the BreakPoint.org website.

On Saturday evening (Feb. 8, 2014), U.S. Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) was presented with the “Freedom” award by Equality Illinois, the state’s leading homosexual pressure group, at a swank fundraising banquet in Chicago. You can watch a video of the presentation below [or on YouTube HERE].

Senator Kirk has become one of the most liberal Republicans in Washington D.C. on homosexual-related issues with ever greater acts of pandering to the LGBTQ Lobby. (He came out for homosexual “marriage” and is pushing for passage of ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act [see homosexual activists release on Kirk and ENDA HERE], 

Read more about ENDA in the Heritage Foundation’s report on the ENDA bill HERE.

You might recall how Senator Kirk – in a capitulation whose cowardice was eclipsed only by its pettiness – recently blocked the respected pro-family organization  World Congress of Families (WCF) from securing a meeting room on Capitol Hill. This towering act in defense of “freedom” (sarcasm) came after the Senator heard complaints against WCF from some homosexual activists. World Congress, affiliated with The Howard Center, is based in Rockford, Illinois.

Thus it appears that Senator Kirk’s conception of “freedom” matches that of his intolerant homosexual activist allies. In 2012, Equality Illinois launched a vicious and slanderous campaign to deny Chick-fil-A restaurants the “freedom” to operate in Illinois. As you can see below, EQ falsely accused C-f-A of “discriminatory policies” because the latter’s Chief Operating Officer, Dan Cathy, had spoken out publicly against homosexual “marriage” as tempting the judgment of God. The Chicago “gay” group launched this “Flick the Hate” petition campaign designed to boot the Christian-owned chicken fast food franchise out of several college towns:

As you can see, Equality Illinois’ malicious campaign smeared Chick-fil-A and its COO, Dan Cathy, as representing “hate”–merely because Cathy disagreed publicly with “gay marriage.” EQ sought to petition stakeholders into cancelling their rental leases to the 19 Chick-fil-A restaurants then operating in Illinois. (Thankfully, they failed; there are now 32 C-f-A franchises in Illinois, according to the company’s website.) The EQ page reads, in part (emphasis theirs):

Chick-fil-A has 19 restaurants across Illinois, mostly on university campuses and in shopping malls.This petition will be give to key stakeholders in Illinois who lease, rent or allow Chick-fil-A to continue to sell their hate-filled homophobic “Chiken,” asking them to cut ties….

That kind of hate has no place in a business, especially in Illinois. It is a shame to be associated with such extreme intolerance and hate.

[Petition:]

…We urge you, as business and institutional leaders in Illinois, to challenge the discriminatory policies of this fast food chain and end all relationships that enable the Chick-fil-A brand to operation on your premises.

This kind of hate has no place in a business, especially in Illinois. It is a shame to be associated with such extreme intolerance and hate. 

I urge you to sever your ties immediately and “Flick-the-Hate!”

Background on Chick-fil-A

It is important to remind the reader that Chick-fil-A as a corporation never “discriminated” against homosexual customers or employees. In fact, one homosexual C-f-A franchise owner defended the restaurant chain and a New Hampshire Chick-fil-A restaurant owner supported a  “gay pride” event. What ignited the LGBT-obsessed Left was that Dan Cathy actually spoke out publicly against counterfeit “gay marriage.” The pro-homosexual/liberal campaign against Chick-fil-A also involved political opposition to proposed restaurant openings in Chicago and Boston–with liberal politicians seeking to banish C-f-A in the name of “tolerance.”

The Left’s opposition to Chick-fil-A led to a massive Christian pro-family backlash in the form of “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day,” organized by Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate. Americans by the hundreds of thousands nationwide went to their local Chick-fil-A to support the restaurant chain.

Thankfully, the homo-fascists at Equality Illinois–and their Democratic political allies who used their offices to attempt to deny Chick-fil-A the right and opportunity to expand and do business (e.g, in the economically-struggling State of Illinois) did not prevail. In fact, they succeeded only in generating more support for Chick-fil-A among many, many consumers.

As you can see below, Sen. Kirk is still recovering from the stroke he suffered in 2012. We wish him a continued and speedy recovery. Politically speaking, however, we at AFTAH are appalled at Kirk’s pandering to Hard Left activists of the sort usually associated with Democratic politics, and we plead with him to return to supporting the pro-family principles of the Republican Party Platform.

Take ACTION:  Call or write Senator Mark Kirk R-IL)  at his Washington D.C. office (202) 224-2854; or at his Chicago office (312) 886-3506; or through his online Comment Form HERE] and urge him to stop rewarding anti-Christian bigotry. Ask him to return this “Freedom Award” from the hateful anti-Christian homosexual group, Equality Illinois–which in 2012 launched a failed pressure campaign to kick Chick-fil-A restaurants out of Illinois.

More ACTION:  Call or write the Republican National Committee [Contact Form HERE] and its Chairman, Reince Priebus [202-863-8500; choose ext. “1”], and urge them to stand firm against the aggressive Homosexual Lobby, which is targeting Christian leaders and businesses like Chick-fil-A for demonization. Tell Priebus that when Republicans like Senator Mark Kirk embrace Democratic-type social liberalism, it only deflates the pro-family GOP grassroots. Lastly, urge Priebus to PUBLICLY oppose ENDA, the radical Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Thank Chairman Priebus for being publicly pro-life–but urge him also to make the case against “Big Gay Government” (e.g., ENDA)–and Obama’s push to nationalize “same-sex marriage”–as part of the RNC’s regular public Talking Points. 

You can watch the YouTube video of the Equality Illinois presentation of the “Freedom Award” to Sen. Kirk HERE

This article was originally published at the AFTAH.com blog.

When it comes to supporting God’s design for marriage, Illinois Family Institute isn’t “chicken,” and neither is Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy.  Christian-owned Chick-fil-A is under attack because Mr. Cathy has publicly affirmed his belief in the biblical definition of marriage. 

As a result, homosexual groups have launched un-relenting and vicious public attacks against Chick-fil-A. Here in Illinois, Equality Illinois, a pro-LGBT activist group, is calling for a “Kiss-In” this Friday, August 3rd.  According to news reports, Equality Illinois says, “LGBT supporters will show their disdain for Chick-Fil-A’s policies with public displays of affection in front of their restaurants.”  And in the process they will once again be demonstrating just how intolerant, insensitive and disrespectful the Left is in pushing its “anything goes” agenda.  

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day is being promoted by Gov. Mike Huckabee, Senator Rick Santorum, Gov. Sarah Palin, American Family Association, Family Research Council, WallBuilders and Illinois Family Institute.  This is a great way of showing our support for a company whose owners believe in marriage as one man and one woman.

IFI encourages you to patronize a local Chick-fil-A restaurant on August 1st,  if you are able.  If you cannot make it this Wednesday, please visit one sometime this week. For a list of Chick-fil-A locations in the state of Illinois, click HERE.

And when you do, please take a moment to thank the staff and management by letting them know you appreciate the company’s Christian values.

On a recent episode of the Daily Show, Jon Stewart debated Mike Huckabee on the issue of legalized homosexual marriage-an oxymoron if ever there was one. (Click HERE to watch video.)

What is truly astonishing is that Jon Stewart’s debate performance has been widely lauded by homosexuals and their supporters as “brilliant” and “erudite”-a virtual intellectual sucker-punch to the ignorant masses whose views Huckabee represented.

I guess if one measures brilliance and erudition by an applause meter or by the number of words Stewart spoke as contrasted with the number Huckabee spoke, Stewart was brilliant and erudite. Let’s remember, though, that his audience is primarily NY liberals-hence the perfervid applause-and that talk show hosts always monopolize the conversation.

On the other hand, if one measures erudition by evidence of scholarship, it’s difficult from this brief debate to determine whether Stewart has studied any serious historians, political scientists, law professors, or theologians on this issue.

And if one measures brilliance by the quality of evidence provided for an argument, or its originality, or its soundness, it’s difficult to see why Stewart’s arguments were deemed “brilliant.”

Here are a few of the arguments whose brilliance evidently blinded Stewart’s viewers to their unsoundness:

Unsound Argument A:

Premise 1.  Laws banning interracial marriage were wrong.

Premise 2. Homosexuality is by nature the same as race.

Premise 3. Therefore, laws banning homosexual marriage are wrong.

False premise:

Homosexuality is the same as race: Homosexuality is ontologically different from race. Race is biologically determined and entails no behavioral implications whatsoever, and therefore is not amenable to moral assessment. There is no research proving that homosexual impulses are biologically determined, and no matter what causes homosexual impulses, attractions, or thoughts, homosexual conduct is volitional and therefore amenable to moral judgment. Many behaviors that may be shaped to some degree by biological factors are immoral. It is both erroneous and dangerous to suggest that the presence of biological influences renders behaviors automatically moral.

Unsound Argument B:

Premise 1. Access to civil marriage is an unconditional civil right.

Premise 2. All adults are entitled to all civil rights.

Premise 3. Homosexuals are prohibited from accessing civil marriage.

Conclusion 4. Therefore homosexuals are being unjustly denied their civil rights.

False premises:

Access to civil marriage is a civil right: Marriage or access to marriage is not a civil right. And civil marriage is an institution the joining of which should be limited by those criteria central to its nature. In other words, marriage pre-exists the state. It has a particular objective nature. The state’s task is to ascertain which criteria are central to marriage and then protect and preserve those criteria.

Access to civil marriage is unconditional: Access to marriage is conditional upon meeting a number of criteria including being the opposite sex of one’s partner.

Homosexuals are prohibited from accessing civil marriage: All adults may get marry as long as they fulfill the criteria that society has deemed essential to marriage, which pertain to number of partners, minimum age, consanguinity (i.e., blood kinship), and sexual complementarity.

Polyamorists are prohibited from changing the criterion related to number of partners. Pedophiles are prohibited from changing the criterion related to minimum age. Incestuous couples are prohibited from changing the criterion related to consanguinity. And homosexuals are prohibited from changing the criterion related to sexual complementarity.

Unsound Argument C:

Premise 1. Concepts or views of marriage are always changing. (Implied)

Premise 2. Change is always good.

Conclusion: Therefore, changing the legal definition of marriage to include homosexuals is good.

False premises:

Concepts or views of marriage are always changing: There is remarkable stability throughout recorded history on the complementary nature of marriage even in societies that allowed polygamy.

Change is always good: Sometimes change is foolish, evil, and destructive.

Unsound Argument D:

Premise 1. The government’s sole or central interest in and involvement with marriage is to support romantic love between people.

Premise 2. Homosexual partners experience romantic love.

Conclusion: Therefore, the government should permit homosexual couples to marry.

False Premises:

The government is centrally concerned with supporting love: The government is not centrally concerned with love. It is centrally concerned with supporting the type of relationship into which children may be born and which best serves the needs of children, because this type of relationship best serves the good of society.

Invalid Argument:

Therefore, the government should permit homosexual couples to marry: Even if it were true that the government’s sole reason for involving itself in marriage were to support romantic love between people, and even if it were true that homosexual couples experience romantic love, it does not automatically follow that the government should permit homosexual couples to marry. Even a government that is centrally concerned with supporting romantic love-which ours is not-need not sanction all relationships whose partners experience romantic love.