Responding to public scrutiny and government policies cracking down on Chinese Communist Party propaganda and influence in American education, Beijing has been rebranding its infamous “Confucius Institutes” and the subversive programs associated with them. But the rot is still there, according to an explosive new report.

So controversial were these CCP-controlled institutions that then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blasted them for “advancing Beijing’s global propaganda and malign influence campaign on U.S. campuses and K-12 classrooms.” In recent years, with authorities and the public becoming increasingly alarmed, the network appeared to be in retreat.

But according to the new report by the conservative-leaning National Association of Scholars (NAS), about two thirds of the more than 100 colleges and universities where a CCP-backed Confucius Institute shut down already have similar programs with different names. And the programs still have close ties to Beijing.

The NAS report, headlined “After Confucius Institutes: China’s Enduring Influence on American Higher Education,” found that the vast majority of the Confucius Institutes had either been shuttered or were in the process of being closed since the public became aware of what was going on. However, the danger remains acute — and most simply had the programs rebranded.

The institutes, which took root in educational institutions all across the nation, were funded and guided by the CCP, the most murderous organization in human history. According to authorities cited by The Epoch Times, the CCP was even picking the textbooks and sending its minions to America to promote its agenda and spy. The U.S. Senate found that the regime had spent over $150 million on the scheme since 2006.

CCP Politburo member Li Changchun said the institutes were “an important part of China’s overseas propaganda setup.” The vast network is associated with the CCP United Front Work Department, which handles overseas influence operations, according to the U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission.

The NAS study found an alarming lack of concern among American educational institutions about the threat. Most that closed their Confucius Institutes, for instance, said the main reason was to replace them with similar programs. Just five universities expressed concerns about the danger of the CCP regime’s influence in U.S. education.

“Five years ago, with Outsourced to China, NAS detailed how the Chinese government uses Confucius Institutes as central nodes in its overseas influence campaign,” said Rachelle Peterson, senior research fellow at NAS and co-author of the After Confucius Institutes report. “Now, we show that despite the demise of Confucius Institutes, colleges and universities have naively signed up for very similar programs under new names.”

Among other recommendations, the NAS called on the federal government to restrict taxpayer funding to colleges that host CCP operations. It also called for more transparency in disclosing foreign money flowing to American universities — especially CCP money. Finally, the conservative-leaning academic network called on policymakers to commission a study on the problem.

With taxpayer-funded “educational” institutions across America blatantly indoctrinating their victims into Marxist ideology without foreign prodding, it is hardly surprising to learn that they are working with the CCP to supercharge it. But this is a major national security risk and there are red flags everywhere. It’s time for policymakers and education officials to put their foot down.

This article was originally published by FreedomProject.com.

Well, they dusted off those colorful “Handmaid’s Tale” outfits that were so visible at Brett Kavanaugh’s U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 2018.

Even before Amy Coney Barrett’s hearing on Monday before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, the Democrats were being cheered on by permanently angry women (and maybe some men) dressed in red cloaks with white duckbills extending from their hoods.

This is the uniform of the oppressed women in Hulu’s serialization of Margaret Atwood’s dystopic, anti-Christian novel. If you thought atheist crusader Philip Pullman’s thinly disguised depiction of church authorities as evil in “The Golden Compass” book and movie were bad, Ms. Atwood runs circles around him.  In her 1985 book and TV series, the polygamous men cite Bible verses and treat the women as sex slaves.

Braving the rain on Monday, the demonstrators held signs festooned with messages such as a giant NO! in rainbow colors over “Trump/Pence Must Go!”

This time around in the U.S. Senate star chamber, the Democrats who pretend to honor religious liberty while assailing nominees’ faith think they have a smoking gun. The word “handmaid.”

Mrs. Barrett and her husband have long been members of an ecumenical charismatic Christian group begun in 1971 called People of Praise, based in South Bend, Indiana, home to Notre Dame University and its law school, from which she graduated summa cum laude and taught constitutional law.

Women leaders in the group, including Mrs. Barrett, previously held the title of “handmaid,” which is derived from Jesus’s mother Mary’s own description of herself in Luke 1:38 as “the handmaid of the Lord.”

The group dropped that title in favor of “women’s leader” because “the meaning of this title has shifted dramatically in our culture in recent years,” a spokesman said.

Mrs. Barrett, 48, now serves on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, to which she was nominated by President Donald J. Trump in 2017.  At that time, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said at a hearing that Mrs. Barrett’s religious beliefs worried her because “the dogma lives loudly within you.”

Wow. Talk about open religious bigotry. But it’s OK because the senator is a Democrat, and they get to do this sort of thing. It’s not as if the media would have a problem with it.

Here’s a front-page headline from last Wednesday’s Washington Post:

Barrett long active with insular Christian group: Community preached subservience for women, former members say.

Ah, those “former members.” You can always dig up a dissident or two to make the point you want, unless you’re reporting on Black Lives Matter or the Democratic National Committee, which are pretty much the same thing.

As for People of Praise, here’s more from their own media statement provided to Heavy.com:

A majority of People of Praise members are Catholic, and yet the People of Praise is not a Catholic group. We aim to be a witness to the unity Jesus desires for all his followers. Our membership includes not only Catholics but Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals and nondenominational Christians. What we share is a common baptism, a commitment to love one another and our teachings, which we hold in common.

Freedom of conscience is a key to our diversity. People of Praise members are always free to follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, experience and the teachings of their churches.

As the Apostle Paul instructs, and many biblically sound churches teach, men are to be the spiritual leaders in the church and in their own households and they are to love their wives as they love themselves. This is considered scandalous by our cultural commissars.

In Ephesians 5:25, Paul writes: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for her.” That means laying down your life if necessary.  It’s why when things go bump in the night, the guy should be the one who goes downstairs with the baseball bat or the Sig Sauer.

Democrats are terrified of the attractive and articulate Mrs. Barrett, a mother of seven, just as they were threatened by Clarence Thomas, who destroyed their narrative that blacks belong on the leftist plantation.

Mrs. Barrett has impeccable credentials that the U.S. Senate already examined when she was nominated for the appeals seat.  At that time, the “handmaid” reference didn’t get traction, since the TV version of “The Handmaid’s Tale” only debuted in April of that year.

In the meantime, we’ve seen U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) take a page from Bernie Sanders and grill Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo in 2018 about sex and marriage, strongly implying that his traditional Christian views are a form of bigotry. Booker likes to make much of his own Christian faith, which apparently is free of the burden of having to abide by crystal clear biblical principles regarding sex.

Also hewing to “smarter than God” theology is Kamala Harris, who has embraced all things LGBTQ, plus taxpayer-funded abortion and Marxist economics. On December 5, 2019, Harris asked Brian Buescher, President Trump’s nominee for district court in Nebraska, “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?” And, “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization?”

During Monday’s hearing, Mrs. Barrett had to face the likes of Booker, Feinstein and Harris, plus the troupe of “Handmaid” harridans.

After the process is over and Associate Justice Barrett is sworn in, the “ladies” can make further use of their costumes.

After all, Halloween is right around the corner.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com. Follow Robert Knight on is a His website is robertHknight.com.

The intellectually incoherent U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) sought to apply an unconstitutional religious test for office today when interrogating nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Neomi Rao. Perhaps hoping everyone listening were idiots, he first attempted an indirect tactic by asking her this irrelevant question, the answer to which is none of his business: “Are gay relationships in your opinion immoral?”

Word to the seriously unwoke Booker: Americans—including judicial nominees and judges—are entitled to think sexual activity between persons of the same sex is immoral.

When Ms. Rao questioned the relevance of his inquiry, the smug Booker responded,

I think it’s relevant to your opinion. Do you think African American relationships are immoral? Do you think gay relationships are immoral?

Seriously, he actually said Rao’s opinion on the morality of homosexual relationships is relevant to her opinion on the morality of homosexual relationships.

But his reasoning—if it can be called that—is worse than circular. His questions imply an analogy between race and homosexuality when there are literally no points of correspondence between the two conditions. Does he understand what an analogy is and what it requires?

Here’s a primer regarding this particular and particularly unsound analogy for the dull-witted “progressives” among us: Race—as understood in such analogies—is a 100% heritable, non-behavioral condition, immutable in all cases, and objective. In contrast, homosexuality is a non-heritable, and in some—perhaps many–cases mutable condition that is constituted by subjective feelings and volitional behaviors that are legitimate objects of moral assessment.

A far better analogue for homosexuality would be polyamory, so, if Booker wants to continue his  moralistic and judgmental line of questioning on irrelevant matters with judicial nominees, he should ask them if they think polyamorous relationships are immoral, to which nominees should respond, “What possible relevance are my beliefs on the morality of particular types of sexual unions?”

Then Booker transmogrified from arbiter of morality to constitutional ignoramus by asking Rao,

Do you believe [“gay” relationships] are a sin?

Whoa, hold up there, cowboy.

The Constitution expressly prohibits religious tests for office, so what the heck was he doing asking Rao for her theological position on homosexual relationships?

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) took Booker to task for his egregious line of questioning:

The Senate Judiciary Committee should not be… an avenue for persecution.

We’ve seen a growing pattern among Senate Democrats of hostility to religious faith…. I was deeply troubled a few minutes ago to hear questioning of a nominee, asking personal views on what is sinful.

In my view that has no business in this committee. Article Six of the Constitution says there should be no religious test for any public office. We have also seen Senate Democrats attack what they have characterized as religious dogma, we’ve seen Senate Democrats attack nominees for their own personal views on salvation.

I don’t believe this is a theological court of inquisition. I think the proper avenue of investigation is a nominee’s record. So let’s look at your record, which is what this committee should be looking at, not our own personal religious views, or your religious views, whatever they may be.

Presidential-hopeful Booker nervously responded to Cruz’s remarks, defending himself with this patently absurd claim:

I would defend—die for—to protect the ideals of religious freedom in our country. And I was in no way trying to attack the nominee’s religious freedom. I was simply saying that discrimination under any standpoints, whether it’s religion, someone’s race, someone’s sexual orientation, should not be tolerated….[R]eligion was used as a ruse to discriminate against African Americans.

For someone who wasn’t trying to attack the nominee’s religious freedom, he did a pretty darn good job of doing just that by framing his question in a way that implied her unfitness to serve on the court. The hubris of Booker’s attempt to reframe his accusatory question about Rao’s moral and theological beliefs is mind-boggling. He would no more die for the right of theologically orthodox Christians to freely exercise their religion than CNN would fact-check anti-Trump news stories.

As Cruz alluded to, Booker’s not alone among U.S. Senate Democrats who engage in open religious discrimination. U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Bernie Sanders (D-VT) Kamala Harris (D-CA), and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) have all revealed their brazen religious bigotry and attempted to apply a religious test for public office during U.S. Senate hearings over the past two years.

During the campaign, someone should ask armchair theologian Booker if he thinks theologically orthodox views of homosexuality are immoral and sinful.

This isn’t Booker’s first religious-test rodeo. Remember the Booker inquisition of Mike Pompeo in which Booker asked Pompeo if he thinks “it’s appropriate for two gay people to marry,” and asked, “Is being gay a perversion,” and asked, “Do you believe gay sex is a perversion? Yes or no.”

Someone should also ask Booker what he thinks should happen in cases where the rights of those whose Christian, Orthodox Jewish, or Muslim beliefs are central to their identity come into conflict with the purported rights of those whose homoerotic desires are central to their identity.

Lesbian Chai Feldblum, until recently a commissioner on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission whose reappointment was thankfully blocked by U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT),  said this about such conflicts long before the Obergefelle decision legalized same-sex faux-marriage:

[L]et us postulate that the entire country is governed – as a matter of federal statutory and constitutional law – on the basis of full equality for LGBT people….

Assume for the moment that these beliefs ultimately translate into the passage of laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation… [G]ranting this justified liberty and equality to gay people will likely put a burden on… religious people….

Let me be very clear…in almost all the situations…I believe the burden on religious people that will be caused by granting gay people full equality will be justified….

That is because I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if “pockets of resistance” to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people….

In blocking Feldblum’s reappointment Lee, said, “Don’t think for a second that you, your family, and your neighbors will be left alone if Feldblum gets her way.” The same can be said about Booker.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Booker-4.mp3

Christian Life in Exile
On February 22^nd, IFI is hosting a special forum with Dr. Erwin Lutzer as he teaches from his latest book, “The Church in Babylon,” answering the question, “How do we live faithfully in a culture that perceives our light as darkness?” This event is free and open to the public, and will be held at Jubilee Church in Medinah, Illinois.

Click HERE for more info…

Written by Rob Chambers

President Donald Trump nominated Mike Pompeo, current Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director, to become the next U.S. Secretary of State.

During a recent Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing, Mr. Pompeo was asked about past comments he made about his religious views on marriage and sexuality. At a church event in 2015, Mr. Pompeo commented on the U.S. Supreme Court opinion that forced states to recognize homosexual “marriage.” Mr. Pompeo quoted a pastor who had said our nation had “endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle.”

U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) took issue with Mr. Pompeo’s past acknowledgment of the national sin of condoning homosexuality and wanted to know if he still held that view. Sen. Booker asked Mr. Pompeo: “Is gay being a perversion?”…”Yes or no – do you believe gay sex is a perversion?”…”So, so you do not believe it’s appropriate for two gay people to marry?”

Mr. Pompeo answered Sen. Booker in the affirmative saying, “Senator, I continue to hold that view…” Meaning Mr. Pompeo maintains the biblical view that homosexuality is a sexual sin, a perversion before God. Mr. Pompeo continued saying, “My respect for every individual, regardless of sexual orientation, is the same.” Christians can and should detest sin, but still love the sinner.

Sen. Booker offered a conflicting response to Mr. Pompeo saying, “Your views do matter…and I do not necessarily concur that you are putting forward the values of our nation when you believe that there are people in this country who are perverse…” (Emphasis added).

Sen. Booker is saying that Mr. Pompeo’s views on homosexuality “do matter” as an individual, but such a person as Mr. Pompeo cannot hold these religious views and still be a qualified nominee for the U.S. Secretary of State.

Sen. Booker’s lack of concurrence or refusal to vote for Mr. Pompeo on the basis of his religious beliefs is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution. Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution clearly provides that there shall be no religious test for any person to public office. It states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (Emphasis added.)

When Sen. Booker took the oath of office to the U.S. Senate, he swore he would “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution of the United States. Sen. Booker has violated his oath of office, and the Senate should censure or condemn his radical, unconstitutional comments.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email to U.S. Senator’s Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to confirm Mike Pomeo’s nomination. Ask them not to ignore the fact that U.S. Constitution specifically forbids religious tests for office.

This article originally posted at AFA.net

Thursday, we witnessed again an arrogant Leftist lawmaker demonstrate his disregard for constitutional principles—specifically for the First Amendment’s religious protections and the prohibition of a religious test for holding office.

In the U.S. Senate inquisition confirmation hearing for Secretary of State nominee and current CIA Director Mike Pompeo, U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) both interrogated and lectured Director Pompeo on sexual ethics.

Here is the astonishing exchange:

Booker: I do want to give you a chance to speak on your comments about gay and lesbians. You said in a speech that morning in America that endorses perversion and calls it an alternative lifestyle.” Those are your words. Is being gay a perversion?

Pompeo: Senator, when I was a politician, I had a very clear view on whether it was appropriate for two same-sex persons to marry. I stand by that.

Booker: So, you do not believe that it’s appropriate for two gay people to marry?

Pompeo: Senator, I continue to hold that view.

Booker: So, people in the State Department… that are married, under your leadership, you do not believe that that should be allowed.

Pompeo: We have married gay couples at the CIA. You should know that I treated them with the exact same set of rights…

Booker [interrupting Pompeo]: Do you believe gay sex is a perversion? Yes or no.

Pompeo: Senator, if I can…

Booker [interrupting again]: Yes or no. Do you believe that gay sex is a perversion, ‘cuz it’s what you said…? Yes or no? Do you believe gay sex is a perversion?

Pompeo: Sir, my respect for every individual regardless of sexual orientation is the same.

Booker: I will conclude by saying, Sir, that you’re going to be Secretary of State of the United States at a time when we have an increase in hate speech and hate actions…. You’re going to be representing this country and their values abroad in nations where gay individuals are under untold persecution, untold violence. Your views do matter. You’re going to be dealing with Muslim states and on Muslim issues. And I do not necessarily concur that you are put foring [sic] the values of our nation when you believe there are people in our country that are perverse….

If you can stomach it, you can watch the inquisition:

It would have served Booker well to watch the speech from which the quote about homosexuality came. The words were not Pompeo’s. They were Pastor Joe Wright’s words and well worth repeating.

Booker did what Leftists everywhere do when discussing conservative views on homosexuality, which is lie by changing someone’s moral claim about volitional behavior to an indictment of people. So, while Pompeo believes that homosexual acts are immoral (i.e., perverse), Booker reframes Pompeo’s claim, saying that Booker thinks people are perverse.

Then Booker suggests the ludicrous notion that the values of America include believing that homoerotic activity is not perverse. How did he arrive at that bizarre belief? From reading the Declaration of Independence? The U.S. Constitution? The Federalist Papers?

Presumably, Booker worships at the altar of diversity—or at least pretends to worship at the altar of diversity. If that’s the case, surely he knows that theologically orthodox Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims believe volitional homoerotic activity is perverse. And surely he knows it’s possible for people of faith to love and respect those who believe differently and act in accordance with their beliefs. Respecting persons does not require affirming all their beliefs, feelings, and actions.

As a professed respecter of “the values of our nation,” does Booker think he should be condemning the theological beliefs of many people of faith?

And what does Booker think about the untold persecution and violence that theologically orthodox Christians experience abroad? Is Booker concerned about how his very public condemnation of theologically orthodox views of sexuality and marriage may affect Christians here and abroad? The Center for the Study of Global Christianity “estimates that between the years 2005-2015, 900,000 Christians were martyred—an average of 90,000 Christians each year.”

Since all theologically orthodox Christians–both Catholic and Protestant–believe that homosexual activity is perverse and that marriage has a nature central to which is sexual differentiation, is Booker suggesting that no theologically orthodox Christians are fit to serve in the Cabinet? What about holding office?

Booker also criticized Pompeo for not challenging Frank Gaffney’s and Brigitte Gabriel’s statements on Islam. Apparently, candidates for high offices now have a moral obligation to not only hold Booker’s views on everything from what constitutes a false religion to sexual ethics but must also criticize anyone who doesn’t hold those views. I wonder if Booker has criticized every person with whom he has spent time for views with which he disagrees.

Ironically, in this self-righteous criticism of Pompeo for not challenging Gaffney and Gabrielle—and presumably every other human with whom Pompeo has come in contact—Booker said this:

Well, I believe that special obligation that you talk about for Americans to condemn things that are attacking our Constitution, our ideals, would obligate you in your own definition to speak out.

Pompeo tried to defend himself against the implied accusation that he hasn’t sufficiently confronted the expression of offensive ideas:

Senator, if I might, I have called out. We had a terrible fellow in Kansas named Fred Phelps [Booker tried to cut Pompeo off], and I called him out.

Booker interrupted him again saying, “Sir, I have a minute left.” It became obvious that all the condescending Booker really wanted to do was scold Pompeo.

Booker said one right thing in his interrogation: Views do matter.

#nooneexpectstheBookerInquisition

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email to U.S. Senator’s Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to confirm Mike Pomeo’s nomination. Ask them not to ignore the fact that U.S. Constitution specifically forbids religious tests for office.

Listen to Laurie read this article:

LINK

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

This afternoon, we witnessed again an arrogant Leftist lawmaker demonstrate his disregard for constitutional principles—specifically for the First Amendment’s religious protections and the prohibition of a religious test for holding office.

In the U.S. Senate inquisition confirmation hearing for Secretary of State nominee and current CIA Director Mike Pompeo, U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) both interrogated and lectured Director Pompeo on sexual ethics.

READ MORE