I am not an anti-vaxxer, and plenty of my friends and colleagues have been vaccinated. And, from the perspective of those who believe that the COVID-19 vaccinations are safe and effective and even life-saving, I can understand the desire to see everyone vaccinated. But what I cannot possibly understand is the threatening, vindictive, heavy-handed bullying in conjunction with the mandates. Not only are these unfair and even cruel, but they give fuel to the fire of those who view the mandates as nothing less than dangerous governmental overreach.

Consider this October 18 story on The Hill which states that, “Chicago police officers could face repercussions, including losing retirement benefits, if they choose to not comply with the city’s vaccine mandate, according to a memo from the Chicago Police Department.

“The memo states that anyone who chooses to disobey the city’s vaccination policy will become the subject of a disciplinary investigation that could result in a penalty up to and including separation from the Chicago Police Department,’ according to CNN.

“‘Furthermore, sworn members who retire while under disciplinary investigations may be denied retirement credentials,’ it continues.”

How can this possibly be justified?

We’re talking about people who, in good conscience, will not be vaccinated, be it for medical reasons or religious reasons or something else (including having natural immunity after having COVID). They are even willing to lose their jobs rather than get vaccinated.

But, as if that was not bad enough, according to this report, the city of Chicago may actually strip away their retirement benefits. Is this anything less than outrageous?

A few weeks ago on my radio broadcast, a caller asked for counsel regarding the vaccine. He had served in the military for years but had serious reservations about getting vaccinated. Yet, if he chose not to get vaccinated, not only would he be dismissed, but, he explained, he would lose all the military benefits he had accrued over the years.

I was shocked to hear this, searching online for confirmation after the show (although the caller seemed quite sure that this was the case).

Although there are varied reports circulating online, early last month, U.S. House legislators openly challenged the announcement that those who refused vaccination would receive a dishonorable discharge. (For the record, and as noted on a military transition website, “A Dishonorable Discharge is the harshest discharge status a military service member can receive, as it is given via court-martial and not by military administration. Service members who receive this standing are accused of felonies involving homicide, fraud, desertion, and crimes that would put any person, service member or not, in hot water. If you receive a Dishonorable Discharge, it is not possible to reenlist with the military.”)

But was this charge true? Were military members being threatened with a dishonorable discharge? Some fact-checkers have said plainly that this is not correct and that the Biden administration does not have the authority to do this.

Yet this does beg the question of why the Military.com website reported on September 2 that, “House lawmakers have backed legislation prohibiting dishonorable discharges for troops who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine.” It also begs the question of how and why news outlets were reporting this very thing. Was it manufactured out of thin air?

Even if this was being reported erroneously and dishonorable discharges were never being considered, we do know that on October 15, it was reported that, “The US Navy said Thursday that personnel who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19 will be expelled from the force, ahead of the November 28 deadline for the injection.”

And this: “People expelled for refusing the vaccine will receive a general honorable discharge, but could lose certain benefits or be forced to repay the cost of training and education in some cases, the statement said.”

Note carefully those words: “lose certain benefits.” And all because, in good conscience, they will not be vaccinated. How can this be justified?

The article also stated that, “Navy personnel who can claim an exemption from mandatory vaccines, for health or other reasons, can be reassigned from their current duties.”

And, it explained, “The navy has been particularly sensitive to the pandemic, because of the risk that a single COVID case could infect an entire ship or submarine at sea, forcing it out of action.”

But what about natural immunity for all those who have had COVID? Since this is far more effective than a vaccine, why must those people be vaccinated? As reported on Medical News Today, a major study from Israel “indicated that people who had never had the infection and received a vaccine in January or February of 2021 were up to 13 times more likely to contract the virus than people who had already had the infection.”

Yet these people face the choice of vaccination or else – and that “or else” is quite ominous. How can this be justified?

When it comes to those serving in the military, we’re talking about people who, for the most part, are in one of the lowest demographics for Covid fatalities. And we’re talking about people who have chosen to serve in the military, some for many years of their lives. And in some cases, we’re talking about people who have risked their lives and disrupted their families and perhaps even been wounded in the field of duty.

Yet, if for reasons that are valid in their eyes, they cannot receive the vaccination, not only do they lose their current jobs. Not only do they lose their military career trajectories (where that applies). But they also lose all the benefits they have accrued over the years.

What an outrage, especially when you consider that it is for those very benefits, such as college tuition aid, that some of them enrolled in the first place.

Again, I am not an anti-vaxxer. And, as much as I very strongly differ with the vaccine mandates, I can understand some of the thinking behind the mandates. But these vindictive and punitive measures are outrageous and completely unjustifiable. In the end, they will do more harm than good, hurting lives more than saving lives while increasing our general mistrust of authority.

May those in government (along with others enforcing these mandates) think long and hard. There is still time to reconsider, retract, and reverse course. That would be the honorable thing to do.

This article was originally published by AskDr.Brown.org.

A non-binding resolution which would force the armed forces to disobey the directive of Commander-in-Chief President Donald Trump and compromise national security has passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. The deeply-flawed resolution (H.Res. 124) is replete with “LGBT” ideology and is a continuation of the radical social agenda of the previous administration.

The resolution passed on a vote of 238-185, with the entire Democrat caucus supporting it and virtually all Republicans opposing it. The Illinois Congressional delegation voted along partisan lines.

The resolution’s sponsor, U.S. Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-MA), claimed that current policy amounts to “targeted discrimination,” and said the House vote assures transgender people “that they cannot be banned from military service because of who they are.”

Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of the “LGBT” advocacy organization GLAAD expressed satisfaction with the resolution and demanded that the administration get on board: “It’s a welcoming reassurance that the elected leaders in the U.S. House support the more than 13,000 brave transgender service members who proudly dedicate their lives to our nation. It’s time for President Trump to drop his proposed ban and stand with transgender patriots putting their lives on the line to keep us all safe.”

The roots of the administration’s opposition to those who choose to identify as homosexual or “trans” serving in the military go back to 2017 when a panel of experts commissioned by former Secretary of Defense James Mattis assessed the effects of accepting persons suffering from a psychological condition called gender dysphoria into the military. The panel’s results indicated that “trans”-identifying individuals have complex medical issues as well as high rates of suicide.

Moreover, treatments that are approved by “progressive” “experts” failed to lead to a more positive outcome. In their testimony before Congress, all four service chiefs claimed they had not seen moral or unit readiness problems with “trans”-identifying troops currently serving but also acknowledged that commanders were forced to spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with the medical and “transition issues” of “trans”-identifying soldiers.

A year later President Trump endorsed the findings of the panel and proposed a nuanced policy regarding “trans”-identifying persons in the military, the details of which are expected to be released on April 12. In short, the new policy bars people from enlisting who have pursued chemical and surgical interventions in their quest to pass as the opposite sex.  In a move that will likely be a focal point for opponents, it requires active duty military personnel to serve as their immutable biological sex, except for those who had already begun medical interventions under the previous administration rules.

Concurrently, the Department of Defense released a study which noted five key points that address combat lethality, military readiness, and troop morale. The study included detailed graphs which outline the principles behind the Trump/Mattis policy.

Meanwhile the new policy regarding “trans”-identification continues to wind its way through the court system.  The District of Columbia Court issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump/Mattis “trans” policy, which was overturned by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. One of the members of the three-judge panel, Judge Stephen F. Williams wrote this regarding a related case, Jane Doe 2 v. Trump:

[Transgender plaintiffs’] claims are fundamentally flawed in almost every respect. They give short shrift to the findings of a panel of military experts commissioned by the secretary of defense. They never grapple with the fact that the presidential tweet, on which they place so much weight, post-dates–rather than ante-dates–the decision of the secretary to reevaluate the previous administration’s policies.

There is a good chance that the Trump/Mattis “trans” policy will prevail when the case comes before the U.S. Supreme Court. Already the Court has narrowly ruled 5-4 that the transgender policy can continue to be implemented as ongoing litigation proceeds. Citizens should encourage their representatives to oppose H. Res. 124, which rejects the sound Trump/Mattis “trans” policy in favor of imposing the radical, science-denying “trans” ideology on the United States military, the detrimental consequences of which are incalculable.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

Yesterday, Larry Yellen of Fox News 32 Chicago sought a comment from IFI for a segment he was doing on Trump’s “transgender” tweet.

Here are the comments that were included in Yellen’s segment from opponents of Trump’s ban on gender-dysphoric men and women serving in the military:

• From “Danielle” Love, a cross-dressing man who works at the “LGBTQ” Center on Halsted: “It’s disheartening to the say the least. I think that transgenders of all kinds are just as equally able to provide for our country just as anyone else would be.” (30 words)

• From “Vanessa” Sheridan, a cross-dressing man who works as the director of transgender relations at the Center on Halsted: “That’s a shame. It keeps people from moving forward with their lives, from being the full contributors that they might otherwise be.” (22 words)

• Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, bristling melodramatically with unrighteous indignation: “I cannot think of a thing that is more abhorrent on the 69-year anniversary of President Truman integrating the Armed Forces racially.” (22 words)

• Senator Tammy Duckworth: “I didn’t care about the gender identity of the soldiers who were risking their lives to save me. I only cared that they were American troops and that they were there to rescue me.” (34 words)

• Colonel “Jennifer” Pritzker, the cross-dressing brother of gubernatorial candidate Jay Pritzker. Yellen reported this about Jennifer Pritzker: “While she’s [sic] a long time Republican, she [sic] has reached out to the president to express her [sic] disappointment.” (17 words)

• Ed Yohnka, ACLU Chicago spokesperson: “This is really beneath what we want America to be and certainly what we want our military to be.” (19 words)

IFI sent this statement to Yellen:

Gender dysphoric men and women who wish they were the opposite sex seek to force all citizens to pretend that subjective, internal feelings about one’s sex are more important than objective, immutable biological sex. They seek to force all of society to treat them as if they are the sex they are not. They also seek to serve openly in the military, which means impersonating and being housed with persons whose sex they do not share. That is a violation of the rights of the men and women who serve every American and every non-citizen who lives in this once-great nation. It’s outrageous that the military stood poised to force men and women who are willing to sacrifice their lives for us to suffer the indignity of showering and toileting with persons of the opposite sex.

Never in the course of human history has a society denied the reality, immutability, and meaning of the sexual binary. Subjective feelings do not trump reality. No matter how Americans feel about President Trump, his tweets, or his positions on other issues, the position he expressed this morning is something for which all Americans who care about the military should be thankful.

This is what Yellen’s segment included from IFI’s statement:

“All Americans who care about the military should be thankful.” (10 words)

144 words from “progressives,” 10 words from conservatives.

So much for fair and balanced.

IFI did not expect our entire statement to be included but maybe two sentences, one of which would have addressed the substantive privacy issue. And perhaps if IFI were to be the only conservative voice included in the segment, Fox could have included even four sentences, which would still have been only half the number of words allotted to “progressive” voices.

Here are some thoughts about the comments made by “progressives” in Yellen’s segment:

• Is it the responsibility of the military to help soldiers ‘move forward’ with their lives as Sheridan claims? And what precisely does ‘moving forward’ mean?

• Since the faux-enraged Emanuel clearly believes that pretending to be the opposite sex is analogous to race, perhaps he could enlighten everyone as to what specific ways these two conditions correspond.

• If I were lying bleeding on a battlefield, I, like Duckworth, wouldn’t care about the gender identity or anything else about those risking their lives to save me. I wouldn’t care if they were anemic, or had orthodontic braces, gout, polydactyly (an extra finger), irregular menstrual cycles, or undescended testicles, all of which are conditions that preclude military service. If I were bleeding to death on a battlefield, I wouldn’t care if the person rescuing me were an infantilist, frotteurist, voyeur, or kleptomaniac. But does the military assess fitness for service based on what criteria matter to those being rescued from imminent death? If that is how fitness should be determined than there would be virtually no criteria.

• What is beneath America and beneath the military is adopting the reality-denying view that objective, immutable biological sex has no intrinsic meaning or value, particularly with regard to modesty and privacy.

• What is beneath America and the military is forcing men and women to share barracks, restrooms, and showers with persons of the opposite sex.

• What is beneath America and the military is coercing Americans to pretend to believe that subjective, internal feelings about one’s biological sex determine maleness and femaleness.

• What is beneath America and the military is facilitating the rejection and mutilation of healthy bodies and compelling Americans to bear false witness in the service of disorders of the mind, heart, and will.

• Either the objective, immutable sex of humans matters or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t matter, then all sex-segregated spaces, contexts, and activities should be eradicated. Everything should be co-ed for everyone everywhere. If objective, immutable biological sex has no intrinsic and profound meaning, then there should exist no public recognition and accommodation of sex differences. No single-sex restrooms; locker rooms; dressing rooms; shelters; semi-private hospital rooms; nursing home rooms; athletic teams; or prisons. No more single-sex military barracks, restrooms, or showers. And this would constitute being on the most perverse side of history–a side of history no civilization has ever before witnessed.

SAVE THE DATE: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2017

Illinois Family Institute’s
Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet

In an interview posted at the Accuracy in Media website, Lt. Colonel Allen West delivers what conservatives have come to expect from him since his arrival on the national political scene back in 2010 when he was elected to Congress from Florida.

We are thrilled to announce that Lt. Colonel Allen West (Ret.) will be giving the keynote address at IFI’s 2017 Family and Freedom Fall Banquet. As an outspoken advocate for the family and freedom, West is becoming known as one of the great conservative spokespersons of our time, and for good reason.

West firmly believes inspiring hope for this generation and those to come is critical to our nation’s future. He is an author and was a conservative leader in Congress. Currently he contributes to Fox News, works with the London Center for Policy Research, writes for various media outlets and is the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a public policy research organization.

Whether the topic is military readiness (“people sittin’ around at a desk pushin’ pencils don’t protect the nation”), or education (“the money should follow the child”), or the political swamp that is Washington, D.C. (“they chase the news cycle…sooner or later you gotta have an adult in the room that does not chase the news cycle”), Colonel West’s delivery is that of a decorated military veteran impatient with those who are “worried about political gimmicks.”

In the interview, West hit Democrats hard: “[T]he other side says they’re all about pro-choice, but not when it comes to education, not when it comes to tax policy or anything else, only when it comes to killing kids.”

Earlier this year in an op ed titled, “The Grand Delusion of the Progressive Left,” West wrote that one “case of delusion was to try and make the American people believe that Keynesian economic policy, tax and spend, was still viable.”

Obama in his eight years focused more on wealth redistribution, you know, we all do better when we “spread the wealth around.” Furthermore, Obama made the seminal statement which presented a window into the mindset of the progressive left when he stated, “if you own a business, you didn’t build that.” There could be no more disrespectful, delusional, assertion directed towards the hard working American and their indomitable entrepreneurial spirit.

Obama and his disciples of economic disaster failed to grasp the concept that economic growth emanates not from Washington DC, but rather from the policies that unleash American investment, ingenuity, and innovation…along with production and manufacturing.

Days before Donald Trump was inaugurated, West wrote about “The Future of Conservatism in America.” He emphasized the need to get capital investment into economically depressed urban areas. Also needed are policies that will strengthen the traditional two parent home, especially in the black community which has fallen from almost 77%, prior to Johnson’s policies, to now 24%”:

What policies will give parents better educational opportunities, choice, for their children, not relegating them to failing government schools? Interesting, Barack Obama canceled the DC school voucher program, yet dispatched his kids to the prestigious Sidwell Friends School. For progressive socialism, it is about do as we say, not as we do.

What policies will create a safe environment for all Americans reestablishing the rule of law and order in our communities? The travesty that is Chicago must end, and sadly it is a cancer that has metastasized all over our Nation.

Conservatism is the answer, whereby progressive socialism, totally emotional based, has only served to exacerbate these issues and make them worse. And in response to the failures, it becomes a game of seeking blame, not one of self-reflection, you know, it is the fault of Fox News and the Russians.

“I was born and raised in the historic inner city Atlanta neighborhood called the Old Fourth Ward,” West writes, and notes that his parents were registered Democrats, but that they “inculcated in me these foundational conservative values — faith, family, individual responsibility, advancement through education, and service to the Nation.”

“I was not just blessed to have two superb parents,” West writes, “but parents who were American Patriots.”

SAVE THE DATE: Friday, October 27, 2017 at The Stonegate in Hoffman Estates.

Our Private Reception begins at 6:00 PM and costs $150.00 per person; which includes hors d’oeuvres, your picture with Col. West, a signed book and the main banquet.

Dinner begins at 7:00 PM and costs $80.00 per person if purchased before Labor Day.

Reserve your tickets online today or call the IFI office (708) 781-9328 to or click HERE to make your reservations.

Program advertisements & banquet sponsorships available.