Uh oh, somebody at the Today Show didn’t get the message from the Ministry of Truth. Last week, a panel of four Today Show talking heads called the human creature with human organs, a human head, human limbs, human features, and human expressions growing inside of a woman a “baby.” #HumanHeadsWillRoll Stacey Abrams is not going to be happy about that.

Science-denier, election-denier, presidential-wannabe, softcore porn writer, and conspiracy-theorist nonpareil Stacey Abrams thinks Americans are not only deplorable but gullible. Last week she startled the nation with this pronouncement:

There is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks. It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.

In her peculiar conspiracy theory, who designed the “manufactured sound to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body”? What is her evidence for this nefarious plot? As an aside, does Abrams need to be on some meds?

One wonders if Abrams conferred with Calculated Carnage—also known as Planned Parenthood (PP)—on her bolus of truthiness. Until recently Planned Parenthood’s website said this about human fetal development at gestational weeks 5-6:

A very basic beating heart and circulatory system develop

That was then. This is now:

A part of the embryo starts to show cardiac activity. It sounds like a heartbeat on an ultrasound, but it’s not a fully-formed heart — it’s the earliest stage of the heart developing.

PP sophists desperately hope Americans are as scientifically ignorant as Abrams pretends to be. PP hopes that Americans don’t know what part of the human embryo produces “cardiac” activity and that Americans believe upon full developmental maturity a body part turns into something wholly different.

Unfortunately for the PP sophists, Americans do know, for example, that when babies are born prematurely, their still-developing body parts that produce respiratory activity are lungs. Many Americans understand that a developing human heart is as a much a human heart as a developing human is, in objective reality, a human. If still-developing human hearts were not human hearts, then body-snatchers and research institutions wouldn’t be paying PP top dollars for them.

Abrams isn’t alone in coming up with strained rhetorical contrivances to avoid humanizing tiny humans. This past February, New York Times staff writer Roni Caryn Rabin described the sound mothers hear on an ultrasound at six weeks as being produced by “a primitive tube of cardiac cells that emit electric pulses and pump blood.”

In her elaborate attempt to convince people that an organized, complex, self-directed mass of “cardiac cells that emit electric pulses and pump blood” is nothing whatsoever like a beating human heart, Rabin elaborates:

The electric activity begins at around six weeks in a tube of cells that will become a heart, after multiple gyrations.

It will bend and loop and twist itself into an S shape. Thick cushions of embryonic tissue will grow toward one another to create walls, and a ridge on the floor of the ventricle will rise to meet them to partition the heart. If all goes well, four chambers and valves will form by the ninth or 10th week of pregnancy, and the heart will continue developing throughout gestation. But a heartbeat’s familiar “lub-dub, lub-dub” sound is created by the closing of the heart’s valves, which do not exist in the six-week-old cardiac tube.

Is that the medical term for the complex development of the human heart: “gyrations”? I thought gyrations were what Elvis’s wayward pelvis did.

At least as noteworthy as Rabin’s emphatic assertion that THERE IS NO FOUR-CHAMBERED HEART INSIDE ANY SIX-WEEK-OLD HUMAN, is her admission that “if” all goes well, those pesky chambers and valves will be present by the ninth or tenth week of pregnancy.

Since Abrams supports the legalized slaughter of tiny humans throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy for any or no reason, the age at which a human heart has four chambers and beats means nothing to her.

As of Jan. 24, 2022, Dr. Vincenzo Berghella, Director of the Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University writing on the well-known website Baby Center said this:

a baby’s heartbeat can be detected by transvaginal ultrasound as early as 3 to 4 weeks after conception, or 5 to 6 weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period.

YIKES! “Baby”? “Heartbeat”? What was Dr. Berghella saying? And why did Baby Center even have a man writing about pregnancy. Sheesh.

By July 20, 2022, writer Karen Miles—not a doctor—had changed the section to imply a more palatable, less humanish development:

You may be able to see the beating of cells in the heart tube for the first time when you’re about 6 weeks pregnant. … At 5 to 6 weeks of pregnancy, there’s a flickering of cells within the embryo’s torso. This flickering is the developing heart tube. At this point, the heart isn’t the four-chambered organ we’re familiar with.

Can’t say the word “beating.” Wouldn’t be prudent. “Beating” might suggest to women that there’s a human with a life-sustaining heart inside her. Instead, Miles used the word “flickering,” which means “to move unsteadily or irregularly.”

Prying itself from the conspiracy to control women, in June 2021, ABC News said that Texas’ heartbeat law “bans abortion once the rhythmic contracting of fetal cardiac tissue — aka the ‘fetal heartbeat’ — can be detected.” “Fetal heartbeat” was in scare quotes. “Rhythmic contracting of fetal cardiac tissue” was not.

The terrifying conspiracy to “convince the world that men have the right to take control of women’s bodies” is ubiquitous, hiding in plain sight for all the tin-foil hat-accoutered paranoiacs to see. WebMD says that at week 6 “your baby’s tiny heart has started to beat.”

Healthline states that “A fetal heartbeat may first be detected by a vaginal ultrasound as early as 5 1/2 to 6 weeks.”

Medline Plus states that at gestational weeks 6-7 a “Baby’s heart continues to grow and now beats at a regular rhythm. This can be seen by vaginal ultrasound.”

The American Pregnancy Association says that “Generally, from [gestational age] 6 ½ -7 weeks [fetal age: 5 weeks] is the time when a heartbeat can be detected.”

Maybe one day mad pink-hatters will stomp their jackbooted feet and shriek, “It’s not a baby!” until they stomp a hole in the ground and disappear into the dark Upside Down where non-sense and feelings rule, and evil is relished as good. In that day, women will let their babies’ hearts keep beating.

Are today’s journalists and news outlets doing their jobs well? According to  journalists themselves, yes. According to the public, no.

A recent survey from the Pew Research Group highlighted the significant disconnect between those who write the news and the rest of us who read them. One of the most interesting findings of the survey was the relative satisfaction of journalists within their industry versus the relative dissatisfaction of those who consume their work. Sixty-five percent of journalists said they believe that news outlets “report the news accurately,” while a mere 22 percent of the public expressed satisfaction with the accuracy of news reporting.

Pew’s survey also queried journalists about their concerns for the future of press freedom. While 42 percent of journalists age 65 and up said they were “extremely concerned” about the trajectory of press freedom in the industry, a scant 20 percent of journalists age 18-29 registered the same level of concern. In other words, the unabashed censorship, the sloppy reporting, and the revisionist history that plagues our nation’s news outlets hardly concerns the next generation of journalists and reporters.

Despite the apparent disconnect between journalists’ perception of their own industry and the American public’s perception of the same, the survey revealed one interesting point on which the two perspectives were more closely aligned: how much the American public trusts their news outlets. Journalists estimated that 14 percent of the American public “has a great deal of trust in the information they get from news sources.” Similarly, only 29 percent of U.S. adults (non-journalists) said that they trust the information they get from news sources.

It’s apparent there is a crisis in journalism and the news industry, but what is causing it? One possible answer is that the American public has clearly seen through the thin veneer of respectability that once accompanied the news industry. The United States has a rich journalistic tradition: the 1st Amendment has accorded the free press an incredible degree of influence over the politics, culture, and trajectory of American society, and for many decades in our history, the press stewarded that privilege with dignity and wisdom. But the brakes have seemingly come off of journalism—there seems to be no limit to the degeneracy that the U.S.’s thought-leaders will publish and promote.  The average American citizen likely isn’t on board with drag shows for kids, for instance, so when their once-trusted news outlets begin to celebrate the depths of human depravity, they (wisely) look to alternative news sources.

One obvious example of this is the decline of CNN. Once a respected staple of American news reporting, CNN’s ratings are now at a seven-year low. Anderson Cooper, a face long associated with CNN, only averages a paltry 600,000 viewers during the 8:00 p.m. time slot; Tucker Carlson averages an astounding 3 million viewers on Fox News.

Doubtless, another cause of journalism’s crisis in public perception is the changing landscape faced by the industry. No longer are people only consuming news curated by large news outlets (New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Fox News). More and more, people are turning to non-traditional sources for their news. Especially for younger generations, podcasts, online blogs, Substack newsletters, and small independent news outlets have become the primary means of keeping up with current events. And for good reason—smaller news sources are less directly affected by public and government pressure and are often willing to report on unpopular (some would say intolerant or hateful) issues.

The dissemination of news via smaller outlets is a wonderful advantage—especially for Christians. No longer do Christians and conservatives need to rely on dishonest long-time news sources to stay informed about current events. Everyone is able to curate their own newsfeed so they can hear from fair, balanced sources without the fear of being ambushed by the woke nonsense we’ve grown accustomed to from mainstream news outlets.

Of course, this poses a challenge as well. How do we go about evaluating the sources we regularly read and listen to? Fortunately, there’s an easy answer to that question: every Christian has a responsibility to evaluate the information they take in by the unchanging standard of God’s Word. This is, of course, difficult at times, which is why it is of the utmost necessity that each and every one  of us finds a community of believers that shapes our worldview only according to God’s Word.

The Biden administration calls it the “Disinformation Governance Board” (DGB—word on the streets is that it was going to be named the “Knowledge Governance Board,” but “KGB” was already taken).

The rest of America calls it the Ministry of Truth, a title derived from George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984.

In a rollout almost as wildly inept as Biden’s exit from Afghanistan, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced its new effort to combat “disinformation.” After the past decade of Democrats spreading misinformation and disinformation, aided and abetted by leftist collaborators at the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC, conservatives are justifiably wary about the DGB.

While leftists have sent to their memory hole the mis- and dis- information they spread like manure all across the fruited plains, conservative Americans have not forgotten it.

Conservatives remember the mis- and dis- excrement leftists spread about the cause of the Benghazi attacks, Trumps alleged collusion with Russia (including Adam Schiff’s bald-faced lies), the lurid tall tale about urinating Russian prostitutes, Hunter Biden’s laptop, the origins of the Wuhan virus, and the efficacy of masks. No conservative in American believes this is the kind of misinformation or disinformation targeted by any agency under a Democrat administration.

Leftists in America’s power centers have a habit of spreading lies that they know are lies about conservatives. Leftists in America’s power centers have a habit of deeming stories critical of leftists “misinformation” or “disinformation” without doing any research to confirm their premature conclusions. And leftists in America’s power centers have a habit of justifying their refusal to report stories favorable to conservatives by deeming them misinformation or disinformation.

The timing of this announcement compounds conservative suspicions. The announcement came just before mid-term elections, just after the Biden administration announced it will be stopping Title 42 border expulsions, and just after Elon Musk purchased Twitter, vowing to make it a free speech platform.

Musk raised the hope that there will be no more algorithmic shenanigans that many believe were used by leftist-controlled social media platforms to throw the election to a senile recluse who refused to campaign and yet won by an alleged landslide.

And at the very moment that conservative hopes for the same kind of freedom leftists enjoy were raised, the DGB was born.

If the birth of the DGB weren’t bad enough, just take a look at the unprincipled, flakey head of the DGB: Nina Jankowicz who belts out obscene show tunes like a Broadway wannabe.

U.S. Senator Ron Johnson sent a letter to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas expressing concerns about both the Jankowicz and the DGB that many Americans share:

Ms. Jankowicz herself has been a beacon of misinformation online.  She has published multiple tweets furthering the false media narrative about the Hunter Biden laptop. In one tweet she wrote, “IC has a high degree of confidence that the Kremlin used proxies to push influence narratives, including misleading or unsubstantiated claims about President Biden, to US media, officials, and influencers, some close to President Trump. A clear nod to the alleged Hunter laptop.” In another, she referred to the origins of how the media came into possession of the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop as a “fairy tale about a laptop repair shop.” She has also posted tweets pushing the Trump-Russia collusion hoax and another implying the United States is as corrupt as Ukraine.

Now, DHS is creating a board to counter misinformation focusing on irregular migration and Russia and appointing a purveyor of misinformation to lead that effort. DHS is taking this action just weeks after announcing its plans to stop Title 42 expulsions at the southwest border, which has sparked a surge of illegal migrant crossing at the border, with CBP reporting an average of over 7,000 encounters a day in March 2022 compared with over 5,900 a day in February 2022. DHS even concedes it needs to be prepared to encounter 18,000 migrants a day at the southwest border once Title 42 is lifted.

You claim this Administration’s border policies are humane, but the crises caused by your policies have only added to the many tragedies caused by illegal immigration. I am concerned DHS’s Disinformation Board will only serve to silence or censor those voices critical of your disastrous policies and serve a political cover for your failure to secure the border.

Ironically, Jankowicz was against government oversight of speech  before she was for it:

Imagine that, you know, with President Trump right now calling all of these news organizations that have inconvenient for him stories that … they’re getting out there that he’s calling fake news, and now lashing out at platforms. I would never want to see our executive branch have that sort of power.

Here’s a revolutionary idea for the powerbrokers who want to run other people’s lives: How about finding a principle and then screwing it to a sticking place—like maybe your spine.

Just as leftists have defined conservative moral and ontological claims about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation “hate speech,” so they can ban it, leftists in the Department of Homeland Security will define news stories they hate “misinformation” and “disinformation,” so they can do likewise.

There is one bit of good news peeking out from behind the cloud of oppression that has issued from the penumbras formed by gaseous emanations expelled from the Biden administration. We have learned that the Biden administration has mastered the art of losing an election: Raise gas prices, raise food prices, make America oil-dependent again, make the world a more dangerous place, judge people by the color of their skin and their genitalia, open wide our Southern border, tell parents the government owns their children, and then tell Americans that a powerful, unaccountable government bureaucracy is going to decide which ideas and opinions constitute “misinformation.”

Yep, that should tap the last nail in Joe’s metaphorical coffin. Rational, liberty-loving voters of every color don’t want the government deciding what their children should be taught, which laws can be broken, or whose speech can be banned.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Biden-Administrations-Even-Harder-Fascistic-Turn.mp3

Why was a man named Ota Benga put in a display with an orangutan at the Bronx Zoo in 1906? What does this perverse act, part of our nation’s history, have to do with abortion? While the treatment of Benga and the atrocity of abortion are not identical, they do share a point in common – a refusal to recognize humanity, which leads to treating another person, or an unborn baby, as an object that can be taken, killed, or used in a way others deem acceptable.

Ota Benga, of the Mbuti people, was born in the Belgian Congo around 1881. He was a man of very short stature; as an adult he was only 4 feet 11 inches in height and weighed 103 pounds.

To those whose worldview was shaped by evolutionary thought, Benga was considered part of a primitive race, an earlier form of man on the evolutionary journey. This worldview justified the wicked and brutal actions that were taken towards these people.

Once, when Benga was out on a successful elephant hunt, his wife and children were murdered, along with others, by the Force Publique, a military group in Congo started by King Leopold II of Belgium. If this was not a sufficient trial, Benga was captured and sold into slavery. A former missionary turned explorer, Samuel Verner, purchased Benga and others to be part of a display for the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair. This display was intended to showcase the stages of evolution.

After the World’s Fair, Benga was taken back to the Congo where he remarried. Sadly, his second wife died. With the rest of his family and clan gone, he suffered the added blow of being rejected by his people. Benga was brought back to the U.S. Facing financial difficulties, Verner offered Benga to the director of the Bronx Zoo, William Temple Hornaday. Shaped by an evolutionary mindset, Hornaday had no issue with displaying Ota Benga like an animal. This proved to be a great publicity stunt. A New York Times headline from Sept. 9, 1906 read, “BUSHMAN SHARES A CAGE WITH BRONX PARK APES; Some Laugh Over His Antics, but Many Are Not Pleased. KEEPER FREES HIM AT TIMES Then, with Bow and Arrow, the Pygmy from the Congo Takes to the Woods.”

The next week, a medical doctor, M.S. Gabriel, wrote an editorial claiming that Ota Benga was having a fine time at the zoo; there was no reason for protesting his poor treatment.

Although Benga did draw crowds, African-American pastors properly raised alarms. The New York Times responded to one of the ministers with incredible arrogance saying: “One reverend coloured brother objects to the curious exhibition on the grounds that it is an impious effort to lend credibility to Darwin’s dreadful theories … the reverend coloured brother should be told that evolution … is now taught in the textbooks of all the schools, and that it is no more debatable than the multiplication table.”

Benga thankfully was set free from the display at the zoo and was helped by an orphanage. Later he moved to Lynchburg, VA and was baptized. He attended some elementary-level classes and ended up working at a tobacco factory. He longed to return to Africa, but World War I prevented him from returning. Sadly, on March 20, 1916, he ended his own life.

On December 17, 2021 Governor J. B. Pritzker signed House Bill 370, repealing the Illinois Parental Notification Act that was first passed in 1995, but not instituted until 2013. It is estimated that this law, once enforced, saved about 1000 lives a year and reduced the number of abortions performed on minors by 55%.

Rich Miller‘s Capitol Fax newsletter recorded the praise of perverse politicians and leaders of groups that savagely prey on the unborn and young people in need. The conclusion of Miller’s article from 12/17/21 noted that Illinois increased its number of abortions to out-of-state residents from 2,970 in 2014 to 7,534 in 2019. Business is booming in this grisly trade.

Thankfully there were a few politicians and other leaders in the fight for life who expressed their horror at the passage of this law. Most of the opposition focused on the rights of parents. Some spoke of the danger of this law with respect to the trafficking of minor girls. Save for Eric Scheidler‘s statement, none of the responses directly highlighted the plight of the unborn. Parental rights are part of the issue, but even deeper is the fundamental right to life that the unborn child possesses from the moment of conception.

In 2006, one hundred years after its initial article, the New York Times wrote a drastically different column on Ota Benga, “The Scandal at the Zoo.” Additionally, in 2020, the Times noted an apology from the Wildlife Conservation Society, the group that oversees the Bronx Zoo, for its treatment of Benga and the practice of eugenics that was endorsed by two of the Society’s founders.

May the Lord awaken the hearts of those who currently are in rebellion against His truth regarding the humanity of the unborn child. If our eyes have been opened to this truth, let us not boast, yet let us not be silent in the face of the continued slaughter.

Other Sources:

David Catchpoole. The Elusive Okapi, Living Fossil of the Congo. Creation Magazine, Vol. 44, No. 1 2022

Jerry Bergman. Ota Benga: the pygmy put on display in a zoo, April 19, 2007

Written by Patience Griswold

Earlier this year the New York Times reported that 27% of American adults are currently estranged from at least one family member. 12% of parents over the age of 65 are estranged from at least one adult child. In parent-child estrangement, the adult child is usually the one who has cut off contact. Value-based disagreements play a significant role in these estrangements, especially when the rift is between a parent and an adult child. Family therapists have pointed out that rising political tensions in the past half-decade have coincided with increased family rifts.

John Stonestreet has described the consequences of the “thinning out” of society — family breakdown and increased isolation leave people looking for a source of meaning and belonging, so they turn to politics and ideology. “To put it bluntly, our politics cannot handle the amount of weight we currently expect of it,” he writes.

Politics can never replace the family, but as the rise in family estrangement shows, far too many adults, especially younger adults, are attempting to do just that, to the point that they are willing to cut ties with family members with whom they have political and ideological disagreements. No family is perfect, but every family is valuable, and the ease with which young adults have begun cutting off family members over political and ideological disagreements is truly heartbreaking. Family is the bedrock of society, and family relationships are worth fighting for.

In addition to the role that political polarization plays in family estrangement, family therapist Dr. Joshua Coleman notes the role of some of the assumptions that are common in psychotherapy, saying,

There’s an idea that you shouldn’t feel guilt or responsibility to anybody. It’s really about what you want to do… On the one hand, this allows people to separate from truly hurtful, abusive family members. We want people to have the freedom to do that. On the other hand, it doesn’t draw a clear line about what should really be considered abusive behavior. That gives people the freedom to engage in behavior that’s frankly selfish or hurtful in the spirit of personal growth.

Far too many Americans are unwilling to do the hard work of reconciliation and are taking the seemingly easy route of estrangement. But this isn’t really easier in the long run. When family ties are cut, aging adults are left without family support, children miss out on the benefits of intergenerational relationships and grandparents and grandchildren alike lose the mental health benefits of grandparent relationships. Furthermore, as Coleman has also pointed out, while many people believe that cutting someone out of their life will make them happy, this isn’t necessarily the case. Instead of happiness, many find themselves facing loneliness, isolation, and bitterness.

The unwillingness to forgive displayed in lost family ties, broken friendships, and overall breakdown of community is a symptom of an extremely graceless culture. If the flaws and faults of the people around us are so intolerable that we cannot even maintain contact with them, what does that say when we are faced with our own brokenness? The way that we view others is closely connected to how we view ourselves, and if other people are unforgivable, where does that leave us?

The Gospel tells a better story. We cannot save ourselves, but rather than hiding from or excusing our own failures while estranging those who remind us of our worst qualities, we are not left to save ourselves. We are, each of us, not only flawed, imperfect, and broken, but also deeply sinful and we cannot bear the weight of our own sins — but someone else already has. And if none of us can ever earn this grace, then we do not get to demand that others earn it. Through the lens of the gospel, when we are faced with the imperfections and sins of the people around us, even those who have hurt us, we cannot help but be reminded of the fact that their only hope is the same as ours — the precious blood of Christ and his perfect righteousness on our behalf. By the grace of God, our worst sins, weaknesses, and flaws—as well as those of our family members—find redemption at the foot of the cross.

Family estrangement over political and ideological disagreement is a tragic and disturbing trend. It is true that political values matter, but we must keep in mind why that is the case. Values matter because ideas have consequences. Estrangement is often fueled by ideas that are at odds with the gospel, like the idea that we get to decide that some people are beyond the reach of grace. If our reaction to disagreement reflects the ideas espoused by secular culture rather than the ideas found in Scripture, then there is a serious problem. As those who have been reconciled to Christ are called to be reconcilers. Reconciliation is not easy — it takes hard work and humility, but it is worth it.

This article was originally published by the Minnesota Family Council.

Written by Michael Barone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by Ryan Scott Bomberger

I’m half white and half black. My melanin doesn’t change my worth or my propensity to sin. Yet we live in a culture where we are told that our skin color confers upon us a status that is fixed, assigned by an elite class of humans who call themselves “scholars.” They want us to see everything through the broken lens of “race”—a human construct that has only served to dehumanize us throughout history. As a person with brown skin, I reject my assigned “status” and refuse to see everything through that distorted prism.

It leads to blindness.

Instead, I choose to see through the breakthrough filter of Scripture that opens our eyes to the truth of our identity, the perfect bond of love, our oneness through Christ, and the freedom of forgiveness. Our human condition, and the frailty that marks us, can never be illuminated by the darkness of tattered theories.

And that’s exactly what Critical Race Theory (CRT) is.

How can a theory derived from anti-Semites who were virulent racists hell-bent on abolishing the family and religion bring healing to the sin of racism? Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels saw Christianity as an impediment to their socialist ideology. How can a godless theory be used as an “analytical tool” to address issues needing a Godly solution?

I’m particularly irked by Christians who don’t want the struggle of wrestling with solutions but simply hop aboard the latest bandwagon sponsored by an insanely profitable victimhood industry. Racism is evil as is every other sin known to humankind. Sin diminishes and destroys us. It is a brokenness that cannot be remedied by more brokenness. But for many, the goal is not to offer a solution but a continual subscription.

Famed educator and leader Booker T. Washington, a former slave, explained this industry well on page 144 of his book “My Larger Education”:

“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

Today, that class of people is of varying hues and NY Times bestsellers capitalize on a form of activism that seeks to divide us, erase equality, and offer forced redistribution in the form of “equity”. Dr. Carol Swain, the brilliant former (black) professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, offers a helpful definition of Critical Race Theory:

“Critical race theory is an analytical framework to analyze institutions and culture. Its purpose is to divide the world into white oppressors and non-white victims. Instead of traditional forms of knowledge, it holds up personal narratives of marginalized minority “victim” groups (blacks, Hispanics, Asians) as evidence (considered irrefutably by its nature) of the dishonesty of their mostly white heterosexual oppressors.”

As someone who is “biracial,” I’m both the “oppressed” and the “oppressor.” Through no fault of my own, since no one controls the circumstances of his or her conception, I’m foisted into perpetual perplexity simply based on the sins or the sufferings of my lineage. Just to further illustrate the absurdity of this deeply prejudiced CRT approach to classification, I can simply highlight my own origin story. I was conceived in rape. So, am I responsible for my (black) biological father’s heinous act? Of course not. Interestingly, my white father—who chose to adopt and love ten children (of varying beautiful hues) that other men abandoned—is branded as part of the “white supremacist patriarchy” that is guilty of every negative outcome of black Americans. My dad, Henry Bomberger, recently passed away. The only legacy he left behind was one of unconditional love and self-sacrifice. His devotion to us proved that it’s not color that binds us; it’s love.

Despite Scripture’s insistence on the unity of believers and how Christ makes us one (Galatians 3:28), CRT diabolically separates us using the deeply flawed human construct of race. Ironically, in a culture that rejects the science of binary gender the progressive priests of CRT demand we can only be the “oppressed” or the “oppressors”. How nihilistic. It also preaches perpetual “guilt” and undeserved “privilege” based solely on one’s skin color.

Fake guilt will never erase real problems.

As Christians, we are all privileged to know and worship a God who could’ve merely condemned us but chose to redeem and rescue us (John 3:16-17). We are privileged to no longer be slaves to sin (Romans 6:6). We are privileged, through Christ’s strength, to be more than conquerors (Romans 8:37).

The Bible tells us to no longer conform to the pattern of this world in Romans 12:2, yet this is exactly what we do when we embrace the warped worldliness of CRT. Blame, Deceive, Repeat. This destructive pattern is recognizable throughout Scripture. Satan is the accuser, and he constantly coaxes us to embrace the lie instead of the Light.

CRT is a debilitating disease. Its malignancy in the body of Christ is spread by pastors who don’t believe the Word is enough. Some of these leaders apparently think the World has the answers to the temporal and eternal devastation of sin.

Mainstream media gave voice to a handful of black pastors who support using CRT and several who left a major denomination over it. Pastor Charlie Dates, of the Progressive Baptist Church in Chicago, exited the Southern Baptist Convention over SBC Seminary presidents’ rejection of Critical Race Theory, despite their clear denouncements of the sin of racism. I thoroughly agree with their statement. I’m not a Southern Baptist, so I have no interest in defending a denomination but merely want to uphold the Truth. Pastor Dates, who embraces unbiblical Black Liberation Theology and the Black Lives Matter movement, issued a defiant (and historically challenged) OpEd sharply condemning those who oppose CRT. He claims the rejection of CRT is due to “fear of liberalism.” I don’t fear liberalism. I wholeheartedly disagree with it because of its dependence on deception and division. Dates strangely then attributed certain social movements to “liberalism” (aka the Democrat Party) such as abolition, women’s suffrage, and civil rights. On all three, Republicans led the fight. But CRT and its advocates value feelings far more than facts.

I don’t think there’s any more eloquent a pastor speaking about cultural issues and Biblical authority than Pastor Voddie Baucham. As a black adoptive father, he embodies what many Christians should aspire toward—Godly character and critical thinking. He exposes and denounces CRT—not with emotionalism (like Pastor Charlie Dates) but with factualism.

Dr. Kimberlé Crenshaw, credited as a co-founder of “Critical Race Theory” (of course, derived from Marxist Critical Theory) is a leading proponent of this poison. Never mind this accomplished black woman was the recipient of Ivy League education at Cornell and Harvard Law School. But, you know, systemic racism. She sees it in everything…well except the abortion industry which massively and disproportionately kills black lives. Crenshaw, who is radically pro-abortion, pro-LGBT, anti-nuclear family and denies the clearly evident consequences of fatherlessness, blames racism for everything that victimizes black people and other “marginalized” groups. Her organization, the African American Policy Council, is holding an event on April 29th featuring Crenshaw, Brad Sears (Executive Director of UCLA’s dubious and radically pro-LGBT The Williams Institute) and Planned Parenthood’s President, Alexis McGill Johnson, as keynote speakers.

But sure, let’s use Critical Race Theory—an ideology that is hostile to Christianity in countless ways—as a means by which Christians should see the world. CRT activists claim to fight for justice but regularly reject truth and morality. Psalm 89:14 says: “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne. Mercy and truth go before Your face.” You cannot have justice without mercy (the compassion or forgiveness toward an offender) and truth. To ignore this is to welcome a cancer instead of the cure.

This article was originally published at TheRadianceFoundation.org.

Join us in Collinsville on Saturday, May 22nd for an IFI Worldview Conference about CRT!

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings to hardworking Illinoisans—which, by definition, excludes members of the Chicago Teachers’ Union—but there’s more news on the education front. Lefty swamp creatures in Springfield wallowing in their own presumptuousness and power have yet more changes in store for the unfortunate Illinois school children who haven’t yet been freed from the re-education camps that self-identify as schools.

The newest offenses from Springfield are buried in the thousands of words of a new bill just signed into law by Governor J. B. Pritzker on Monday March 8, 2021.

The first offense is providing general revenue funds to be used for the creation of a network of Chicago Freedom Schools (CFS) which will be breeding grounds for leftist social activists. This is an official photo from the school. Currently, Chicago has one Freedom School—a non-profit organization—which opened its doors to budding young social justice warriors in 2007. But leftists believe that one CFS and all public schools are not creating nearly enough community agitators.

The law states,

The State Board of Education shall establish a Freedom School network to supplement the learning taking place in public schools by creating a 6-week summer program. … A Freedom School shall intentionally and imaginatively implement strategies that focus on … Racial justice and equity. … The Freedom Schools Fund is created as a special fund in the State treasury. the [sic] Fund shall consist of appropriations from the General Revenue Fund, grant funds from the federal government, and donations from educational and private foundations.

The CFS makes clear its BLM/Critical Race Theory mission and tactics:

CFS uses social justice and anti-oppression practices to work to transform oppression into liberation by naming, analyzing, implementing and teaching actions that dismantle systems of supremacy that give power and privileges to some at the expense of others.

CFS invites “young leaders of color ages 13-17” who are “passionate about social justice” to apply for a Freedom Fellowship in order to build “community organizing skills” and “become community change-makers” by exploring current issues such as racism and climate change in order to “develop skills” for “dismantling injustice.” I’m not sure, but I think limiting government-subsidized fellowships to leaders “of color” might be racist and violate anti-discrimination law.

The CFS’s Summer Leadership Institute studies “issues of systemic oppression like racism, heterosexism, food justice, the school to prison pipelines, sexism, and more.” Something tells me that discussions of the pipeline to prison don’t include discussions of premarital sex, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and fatherlessness.

  2019 CFS fundraiser entertainment

Let your fingers do the walking right on over to the Chicago Freedom School’s Facebook page and take a gander at the photos of the school that your taxes will now be used to replicate all around Chicago. Check out the photos of their November 2019 fundraiser titled Moments of Justice: Unmasking Our Ancestral Gifts. By “unmasking,” they evidently mean unclothing, and by “gifts,” they evidently mean—well, you can see for yourself.

The man in the furry black vest is homosexual activist Tony Alverado-Rivera who is the executive director of Chicago’s only Freedom School. He wants to defund police, abolish ICE, and remove Chicago Police from dangerous Chicago schools. CFS supports “trans”-cultism and BLM, and offers workshops to help other leftist agitators build “social justice practices” into their schools, which presumably includes public schools.

And now, thanks to leftists in Springfield and the taxes of Illinoisans, Chicago won’t have just one ideological factory churning out activists; Illinois will have an entire network. And to make matters worse, it appears the law grants carte blanche to the reliably leftist Illinois State Board of Education to implement the Freedom Schools project for creating social justice change-agents:

The State Board of Education may adopt any rules necessary to implement this Section. (emphasis added)

The new law also includes a change in the school code regarding what must be taught during Black History Month. The school code already required every elementary, middle, and high school to teach a unit that addresses the following:

[T]he events of Black History, including the history of the African slave trade, slavery in America, and the vestiges of slavery in this country. These events shall include not only the contributions made by individual African-Americans in government and in the arts, humanities and sciences to the economic, cultural and political development of the United States and Africa, but also the socio-economic struggle which African-Americans experienced collectively in striving to achieve fair and equal treatment under the laws of this nation.

Further, existing law said, “The studying of this material shall [must] constitute an affirmation by students of their commitment to respect the dignity of all races and peoples and to forever eschew every form of discrimination in their lives and careers.”

While many Illinois schools haven’t yet been able through the study of “material” to get students to affirm the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic, lawmakers think they will be able to get them to “forever eschew every form of discrimination in their lives and careers.” Wowzer!

As noble a goal as ensuring students forever eschew every form of discrimination in their lives and careers is, is that really the role and responsibility of government employees? And is there a comprehensive list of every form of discrimination that leftist lawmakers believe students must be indoctrinated to eschew in their lives and careers?

Remember, Springfield swampsters and their leftist allies on the Illinois State Board of Education believe that disapproval of volitional homosexual acts is a form of discrimination. The belief that marriage is by nature a sexually differentiated union is a form of discrimination. The belief that biological men—also known as men—don’t belong in women’s sports or locker rooms is a form of discrimination.

But, the social justice despots who rule Illinois are nowhere near done tinkering with laws in order to manipulate the minds of other people’s children. The new law adds the following to everything else that must be taught to Illinois children in order to satiate leftists who want to use public schools to turn children’s hearts against America and turn children into social justice warriors. Now, the Black History unit will have to include,

[T]he history of the pre-enslavement of Black people from 3,000 BCE to AD 1619 … the study of the reasons why Black people came to be enslaved … and the study of the American civil rights renaissance.

This change to the study of black history constitutes a means to weasel controversial 1619 Project ideas into curricula without Illinoisans realizing it.

Classroom time does not permit any public K-12 school to teach the history of any country or identity group comprehensively. The partisan view that K-12 schools should teach about “the pre-enslavement of Black people from 3,000 BCE to AD 1619” is both absurd and doctrinaire. Why just the history of blacks from that period? And why those specific dates? Well, we know why the dates. They’re lifted straight out of the much-condemned 1619 Project written by non-historian New York Times writer /social justice agitator Nikole Hannah-Jones.

If public schools are going to mandate the “study of the reasons why Black people came to be enslaved,” are they going to require that students study those reasons in context of the worldwide history of slavery and the participation of African blacks in the slave trade? Are they going to make clear that more black slaves were sold to Europe, South America, and the Caribbean than to the United States? Are they going to require students study the history of the role of Christianity in the abolition movement? Will resources used include those by conservative blacks like Carol Swain, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and John McWhorter?

Doubtful, because the goal of leftists is not historical accuracy or exploring diverse ideas. Their goal is partisan politics.

There will be no satiating the swamp creatures in Springfield who, in cahoots with leftist “educators,” are drowning government schools in leftist ideology, thereby turning education into indoctrination and Illinois children into leftist activists.

Read more:

Despite Nationwide Condemnation, Illinois Passes Leftist Teacher-Training Mandate (Laurie Higgins)

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Another-Woke-Education-Law-Just-Signed-by-Pritzker.mp3

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!

It should come as a surprise to no one that the formally Christian childcare agency Bethany Christian Services has fully capitulated to homosexual activists and Big Brother—also known by Jesus as Caesar—in deciding to place children in the homes of homosexuals for fostering and adoption in all 32 states where it operates.

It should come as no surprise because the 77-year-old Bethany Christian Services, “the largest Protestant adoption and foster agency in the United States,” began capitulating several years ago when homosexuals began demanding children from Bethany, first in Philadelphia and then in Michigan.

What might surprise Christians is the sophistry Bethany now employs to rationalize their decision that will inarguably harm children temporally and likely eternally.

In a Christianity Today article on this story, Bethany vice president Nate Bult makes this astonishing claim:

Faith in Jesus is at the core of our mission. But we are not claiming a position on the various doctrinal issues about which Christians of mutual good faith may disagree. … We acknowledge that discussions about doctrine are important, but our sole job is to determine if a family can provide a safe, stable environment for children.

Word to Bult, faith in Jesus should never be separated from the work of Christians. It should inform every decision they make, especially in the kind of work Bethany does. Faith in Jesus requires accepting God’s Word as unalterable, objective, transcendent, eternal truth and includes everything the Bible says about homosexuality, marriage, and raising children.

We learn in God’s holy Word that God destroyed two cities, centrally because of rampant homosexuality. We learn how serious a sin God views homosexuality because he includes it in verses about two other serious sins: bestiality and incest. We learn from Jesus himself that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. We learn that those who engage in homosexuality will not see the kingdom of heaven. And we are commanded to train up our children in the way they should go.

Two men or two women who believe marriage has no intrinsic nature central to which is sexual differentiation and who believe homosexual acts are moral acts cannot possibly raise up a child in the way they should go. In reality, they will raise up children to believe that evil is good. They will teach children the lie that “love is love”—a lie that if affirmed as good and true may cost children their eternal lives.

Doctrinal issues regarding the ontology and teleology of marriage and the morality of homoerotic acts are not issues about which “Christians of mutual good faith” may disagree. They are foundational issues, and those who disagree with theologically orthodox views are apostates or heretics.

Marriage is a picture of Christ—the bridegroom—and the church—his bride. A homoerotic union composed of two people of the same sex suggests that there is no difference in nature or function between Christ and the church, which is a heretical notion.

But no worries to Bethany leaders. They get to keep Caesar’s money if they render unto Caesar what is God’s.

The New York Times reports that Bethany president Chris Palusky claims that Bethany’s decision to place infants and children in the homes of men and women who affirm acts that God detests is consonant with remaining “steadfast” in its “Christian faith” and “furthers” its mission to provide “safe homes” to vulnerable children.

How does Palusky define “safe”? Clearly, the eternal lives of these vulnerable children don’t factor into his understanding of safety. And clearly, raising children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord doesn’t factor into Bethany leaders’ understanding of remaining steadfast in their Christian faith.

Interesting side note about Palusky: He held a senior leadership position with World Vision in 2014 when World Vision announced its controversial decision to hire employees in homosexual relationships. The decision was so controversial, World Vision reversed it in two days. Four years later, in 2018, Palusky unfortunately landed at Bethany Christian Services.

Bethany passed an “inclusivity” policy this past January that omits this position statement in place since 2007:

God’s design for the family is a covenant and lifelong marriage of one man and one woman.

Would an organization that remains steadfast in its Christian faith and whose faith in Jesus remains at it core remove Jesus’ definition of marriage and replace it with a policy that permits children to be placed in the homes of unrepentant homosexuals?

In making its decision to render unto Caesar God’s children and, in practice, to embrace heretical doctrinal positions, did Bethany consult Scripture? Nope. Bethany hired the Barna Group to poll 667 “self-identified” Christians:

Barna found 55% of Christians said either that sexual preference should not determine who can foster or adopt, or that it was better for children to be in an LGBTQ home than in foster care. The survey also found that 76% of self-identified Christians agree, at least somewhat, that it would be better for Christian agencies to comply with government requirements pertaining to the LGBTQ community rather than shut down.

Well, there you have it: a childcare organization at the core of which is purportedly Jesus uses a poll to help determine whether it should place children in the homes of men and women who affirm sin as good.

The belief of 507 of 667 self-identified Christians that Bethany should comply with Big Brother, and the belief of 367 of 667 self-identified Christians that it is better for vulnerable children to be raised by homosexuals than by heterosexual foster parents persuaded Bethany leaders of the position they already held.  Perhaps it would have been wiser to poll 667 theologically orthodox, non-apostate Christian pastors on this momentous decision.

A false dichotomy appears to be implicit in the questions posed to the 667 self-identified Christians. The choices available to Bethany are not limited either to capitulating to homosexuals and Caesar or shutting down.

There is a third option available to organizations for whom steadfast faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ is truly central to their mission: They can disengage from Caesar. Bethany could refuse government money and all its attached un-sanctifying, damning strings dangling so temptingly before them.

Enquiring minds want to know if Bethany—fully committed to Christ and his kingdom as it is—will soon place children in the homes of men who pretend to be women? What about in the homes of homosexual “throuples” like the one from San Diego (whose book Amazon is not banning)? This particular “throuple”—three men who fought successfully to have all three of their names listed on their children’s birth certificates—didn’t need to adopt. Instead, they purchased genetic material and rented wombs. But other “throuples,” “quadrouples,” or “septouples” may not have the resources for purchasing genetic material. Will Bethany one day place vulnerable children with such families? If not, why not?

Why not place children in the homes of polyamorists with five adults of assorted biological sexes and sexual interests? If the sex of adopting parents is irrelevant, why is the number of partners relevant? Come to think of it, if love is love, why does blood kinship matter? Why not place children in the homes of brothers in romantic/erotic unions?

While a Barna poll may show over half of self-identifying Christians currently oppose such placements, just wait awhile and poll them again.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/BCS.mp3

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI,
please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.

It makes a difference!

Written by Don Alltoada

Media networks are powerful opinion setters. Still, for a reason, most people have deep distrust in newsmakers. Since their outset, press and radio were brought into play for political propaganda.

The first use of the term “mass media” dates back to 1923. It appeared in the columns of the magazine “Advertising and Selling” and referred to the “most economical way” to spread, in no time, its message to all target market groups.

The initial definition had an advertising focus, most likely due to the development that the same year of the first American radio network in Boston. The concept directed to the public was plain and simple – mass communication for mass consumption.

The postulate was further refined by Harold Lasswell. In his book “Propaganda Technique in the World War”, published in 1927, he described his “hypodermic needle model”, known also as the “hypodermic-syringe model”, “transmission-belt model”, or “magic bullet” theory. This is a model of communication suggesting that an intended message is directly received and entirely accepted by the receiver.

The model got rooted in the 1930s behaviorism and had fallen into obsolescence for some time, but big data analytics-based mass customization has led to the revival of the initial idea behind it.

Four decades later, in 1964, the concept was deepened by Marshall McLuhan in his book “Understanding Media.” According to McLuhan, cinema, television, the press and radio are “mass media” because they have the same characteristics: one-way communication, one-sidedness of the message, undifferentiation and linearity of information.

In his views, the mass media – a Marxist concept that globalists and neosocialists will strive to revive after the election of President Biden – would contribute to a happy “global village” by catalyzing a common culture of “micro-societies.”

That credulous reading was opposed by leading intellectuals of the 20^th century. In their macro-perception and analysis of mass media, the main fear, fully justified we may say today, was the increased facility to submerge people and nations with propaganda messages. The “global village” turned to be everything but a “happy” one.

The meticulous and systematic application of the “magic bullet theory” transpires from the reporting practices of CNN and the New York Times. By targeting audiences with carefully crafted inaccuracies or half-true messages, they denigrate or enhance, at their ease, in line with their prevailing political inclination and leftist ideology.

CNN and the NYT lost it on the central tenet of journalism: objectivity and reliability of information. It is a false claim to argue that President Trump was the central disrupter in modern media; his presidency coincided with deep and rapid changes in society and technology that reshaped the concept of neutral journalism.

The only profession mentioned in the U.S. Constitution is the press. It has long been seen as essential to democratic governance. Free speech, enshrined in the First Amendment, is one of the bulwarks of individual liberty and equality. This has not always included the perception of impartiality and objectivity. In the 18th and 19th century, in fact, most newspapers were often aggressively partisan.

Today, standards are different and journalism is attacked for not being balanced. At the same time, the idea of nonpartisan journalism is fading away. With the sharp polarization of the American society, news corporations opt for returning to their vigorous and confrontational ways of the past.

Still, in doing so, they must abide to ethical principles and deontological objectivity. The existing legislation must be adapted to the evolving media environment. More than the hackneyed “protecting democracy” pretext, this time it is a question of protecting the freedoms of U.S. citizens from misleading public opinion influencers.

Because of the large erosion of trust in the media, mainstream news corporations face new credibility risks in terms of public opinion. CNN and the NYT handled a wide-ranging backlash for being unprofessional on a number of occasions and in the last five years they just flushed what remained of their reputation down the toilet.

For instance, CNN was forced to retract a story on its website that claimed the Senate was investigating links between a Russian bank and a close ally of Trump. The network apologized and three high-ranking CNN journalists resigned.

The New York Times, too, had to correct an editorial and apologize for incorrectly linking a map produced by Sarah Palin’s political action committee to the 2011 shooting of U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords (D-AZ)

The Associated Press has issued corrections as well for its coverage of the Russian election meddling story.

CNN has been the subject of allegations of party bias and disparate treatment of Republican and Democratic candidates during the last two presidential primaries.

In October 2016, WikiLeaks published emails from John Podesta which showed CNN contributor Donna Brazile passing the questions for a CNN-sponsored debate to the Clinton campaign. In the email, Brazile discussed her concern about Clinton’s ability to field a question regarding the death penalty. The following day Clinton received the question about the death penalty, verbatim, from an audience member at the CNN-hosted Town Hall event. According to a CNNMoney investigation, debate moderator and CNN contributor Roland Martin “did not deny sharing information with Brazile”.

During the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries debate moderated by CNN and the Des Moines Register on 14 January 2020, CNN faced controversy and criticism from media pundits and the public alike over what many saw as blatant bias for centrist candidates as well as a CNN article some journalists believe to be a manufactured hit piece intended to depict Bernie Sanders as a misogynist prior to the debate followed by a series of adversarial and loaded questions during the debate itself regarding the anonymously sourced story.

On 10 January 2017, CNN reported on the existence of classified documents that said Russia had compromising personal and financial information about then President-elect Donald Trump. CNN did not publish the dossier, or any specific details of the dossier.

Later that day, BuzzFeed published the entire 35-page dossier with a disclaimer that it was unverified and “includes some clear errors”. The dossier had been read widely by political and media figures in Washington, and had been sent to multiple other journalists who had declined to publish it as it was unsubstantiated.

On 26 June 2017, three network investigative journalists; Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau, and Lex Haris, resigned from CNN over a false story, later retracted, that connected Anthony Scaramucci to a US $10 billion Russian investment fund. The network apologized to Scaramucci and stated that the online story did not meet their editorial standards.

The Washington Post fact-checked a CNN report regarding Trump on 8 December 2017: CNN ran a story that claimed two sources told the network that the Trump campaign received an email that gave Trump and his son Don, Jr., early access to WikiLeaks documents on 4 September 2016. The Washington Post, did obtain the email, which showed that the CNN information was wrong and CNN was forced to issue a correction of their story.

What is more, the case of the former UN high official Frank LaRue proves the impossible moral equilibrium for CNN and the NYT of preaching and delivering ethically on the same subject.

Four months ago, the Liberty Sentinel reported that Fundamedios, a human rights organization committed to protecting journalists and combating misinformation, elected as Chairman of its Board of Directors in the United States a sex offender that was sacked from UNESCO in 2018. Yet, Frank La Rue’s biography on its website makes no mention of his previous role at UNESCO or how he lost it.

La Rue was booted out of his senior UN post in February 2018 after the Daily Mail revealed ‘MeToo’-style allegations that he sexually harassed and aggressed a woman working with him. His job at the UN was to promote freedom of expression globally as ‘fundamental’ to democracy. Yet after being marched out of UNESCO’s headquarters, he lodged a formal complaint about the press finding out about it and claimed some US $160,000 in “damages for injury to his reputation” against UNESCO, accusing the UN agency of disclosing information about him. His claim was dismissed.

As also revealed by the Liberty Sentinel, among the Fundamedios Board of U.S. advisors appear two major leftist media duly represented for CNN by Fernando del Rincón and by Boris Muñoz for the New York Times. Working with Frank La Rue did not create any moral discomfort to both. At the same time, a CNN webpage is specifically devoted to allegations of sexual impropriety. You can read there:

“Since 2016, dozens of high-profile men have been accused of sexual misconduct, harassment or assault (…).The list of accused men includes key figures across politics, news media and entertainment. (…) Some have lost their jobs. Others have not”. 

Frank LaRue is not included in the CNN list. Instead, he is considered as a reliable partner by CNN and the NYT. Demonstrably, the sexual misconduct of LaRue is not a problem for their unethical corporations.

Following the publications in the press revealing the scandal, Fundamedios removed immediately Frank La Rue from his position. The organization kept him however as Director for Advocacy and Human Rights. When he got the Chairmanship, Fundamedios issued a press release announcing his election. We have seen none on his ejection.

Our attempts to obtain a comment from Fundamedios prior to the publication of this article did not bear result. Their email address in the USA is not operational, and neither is the telephone line in Washington DC provided for contact on their webpage.

The main question that remained unanswered was how would Fundamedios describe the reasons for conferring responsibility for Advocacy and Human Rights to a sexual harasser, with proven misconduct that led to his sacking from UNESCO?

Both leftist media CNN and the NYT are still involved with Fundamedios and find no ethical problem to cooperate with an organization in which the responsibility for human rights is conferred to a sexual offender. Once more, CNN and the NYT were caught on the spot preaching for greater morality but doing exactly the opposite.

* * * * *

With CNN and the NYT irreversibly damaging reporting standards, the main battle for press and media is to remain consequential in the context of increasing public mistrust. Nowadays, too often, cases of corruption and other unlawful deeds disclosed by the press are judiciary ignored, and perpetrators feel free and nonchalantly unaccountable.

The banalization of reporting political scandals and financial scheming represents a serious risk for journalism at a time when thousands of news reports are aired per minute, every single hour of the day. If that continues, journalistic work will become inconsequential and journalism will turn into a business like any other business – profit oriented and money dependent.

The American media ecosystem has become saturated with misinformation and noise because the press remains committed to a set of norms that are ill-adapted to the digital age. That makes it easy for bad-faith actors to get away with pushing falsehoods.

It the digital era, evolvements in the media landscape are unpredictable. The unexpected move by Facebook this week to block news access in Australia was unimaginable only weeks ago. The retaliatory move blocked Australians from sharing news stories, escalating a fight with the government over whether powerful tech companies should have to pay news organizations for content. Facebook acted after the House of Representatives passed legislation that would make it and Google pay for Australian journalism. The decision of Mark Elliot Zuckerberg also blocked some government communications, including messages about emergency services. What’s happening in Australia today may become a precedent for other countries as governments revamp laws to catch up with the fast-changing digital world.

Unmistakably, the “cyberspaced” world is entering a phase where the future of reporting is going to be based on consumers view on whether a story is worth enough to pay for it, by subscribing or subsidizing. The job of reporters will be to a greater extent to provide guideposts for people who have too much information in front of them at every moment of their life.

Because of social media devouring humans’ brains, the viability of journalism is already in a weakened condition. The risk is that journalism can destroy itself from within, if its standards keep being lowered so as to fit the minimal media reading skills of the general public. A new generation of citizens will be formatted according to such new media paradigms and the fundamental freedoms of people will be again at risk.

This article was originally published by Liberty Sentinel.

Tax-funded propagandists in media and academia across Illinois are demonizing the historic 1776 Report report on the public’s dime, without offering any examples of errors or inaccuracies among the facts presented by President Donald J. Trump‘s 1776 Commission.

Trump’s commission was created partly as a response to the debunked 1619 Project by the New York Times, which used deliberate lies to paint the United States as evil yet is being taught in government schools across Illinois. In particular, the previous administration sought to provide a counterweight to the indoctrination taking place in public schools. The goal:

“enable a rising generation to understand the history and principles of the founding of the United States in 1776 and to strive to form a more perfect Union.”

Among the taxpayer-supported Illinois critics of the historical document was fringe “history” professor Lionel Kimble Jr. with Chicago State University. In his ramblings against the report, quoted by Chicago’s tax-funded NPR radio station WBEZ, Kimble did not challenge a single fact presented by the commission.

“I went between laughter to confusion to utter disdain,” Kimble told the tax-funded “news” station, as if ridicule were a substitute for facts, logic, and evidence. “I had this visceral reaction as I read it, and I just was shaking my head through most of it.” Calling it “ahistorical,” and with “no basis in historical fact,” the far-left professor said he “wasted my time reading it.”

In reality, the 40-page report was absolutely filled with historical facts, as anyone can verify by reading it. Indeed, much of the report is composed of direct quotes and excerpts from primary-source documents and historical statements by key figures in American history such as the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., and more.

Saying that the report has “no basis in historical fact” when it is packed with primary-source documents and quotes from key historical figures shows Kimble either never read the report, knows nothing about what constitutes history, or is deliberately trying to mislead the people of Chicago.

Kimble then proceeded to offer powerful evidence that he had never actually read the report that supposedly made him laugh between his disdain and confusion. Ironically, he blasted the Trump administration because it “put this document out to say that America was perfect” right before the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday.

If Kimble had read the report, he would know that it dealt extensively with America’s failings. Indeed, the largest section in the report other than the appendix was about “challenges to America’s principles” including slavery (a scourge that has plagued virtually every human culture and civilization throughout history).

When asked by the Chicago NPR propagandist about its release before the MLK holiday, Kimble truly stepped in it. “I think that casts a long shadow on King’s assassination,” claimed the fringe “history” professor, whose book glorifying Big Government has not received a single review on Amazon in five years. “It tells people who believe in King and believe the things that he stood for that he died for nothing.”

But again, if Kimble had actually read the report, he would know that King was one of the most extensively quoted figures in the report. And ironically, considering his anti-American attitude, it appears that it is Kimble, not the 1776 Commission, who wants people to reject “the things that [King] stood for.”

Consider King’s own words quoted in the 1776 Report. “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir,” King said, adding that the founding documents protected the unalienable rights of black and white Americans.

Kimble’s rambling interview continued by claiming America is a “historical wasteland” where Americans “don’t talk about things” because “it doesn’t make Americans feel good about the atrocities that we’ve done as a nation.” Then he suggested that America, like National Socialist (Nazi) Germany, must repent more.

Yes, seriously; Brought to you by the taxpayers of Illinois and the Unites States of America. Efforts to reach Kimble to explain his bizarre comments were unsuccessful. A phone number listed for him on Chicago State University’s website had been disconnected, and no alternate number was provided by the recording.

Kimble and Chicago’s NPR were not the only tax-funded extremists to demonize the report and America without actually citing a single example of something wrong with it. Tax-funded propagandists at NPR Illinois did the same thing, quoting a tax-funded academic blasting the 1776 Commission’s report without identifying a single error in the document.

Legitimate journalists would have at least provided balance. They could have done this by quoting or interviewing any of the scholars and experts behind the report — people like the highly respected Dr. Carol Swain, the co-chair of the 1776 Commission and a (black) former law professor at Vanderbilt Law School, for example.

Instead, tax-funded propaganda outlets in Illinois chose to interview tax-funded pseudo-“scholars” whose specialty appears to be the fact-free demonization of America. No wonder opposition to tax subsidies for NPR and other far-left propaganda is growing so quickly across America.

Please consider supporting the work of Illinois Family Institute. 

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

Chinese Translation – 中文翻译

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

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

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

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

Chinese Translation – 中文翻译

No matter what you think of Trump’s character or rhetoric (I’ve never been a fan of either), his presidency accomplished many great things for America, perhaps chief among them getting the left—especially Big Tech—to expose its purulent underbelly. The real power today rests in the delicate fingers of the tech Oligarchs sitting behind their screens moving walls to trap Americans in their prison-like mazes equipped with virtual solitary confinement cells and freedom-crushing language rules euphemistically called “community standards” and “policies.” Trump was the immovable force that stood for a brief moment in their way.

The tyrannical nature of leftists has emerged more fully following the indefensible and shocking 90-minute assault on the Capitol. The fury of those robbed of faith and family by leftist ideologies turned from the theft and arson of businesses and police precincts—targets Dems couldn’t have cared less about—to the Capitol. The monsters who were created and abandoned have turned on some of their Frankensteinian creators, that is Congressmen and women.

Yes, leftist ideologies create lawless anarchists on both the left and right. Violence is the business of fatherless, faithless, anchorless young men. Always has been, always will be.

After five months of lawless leftist anarchy during which CNN, AOC, and scores of other leftists defended and egged on alienated leftist anarchists who attacked symbols of government, law, and order, alienated far-right anarchists decided to attack a symbol of government, law, and order too.

Of course, Congress hasn’t worked alone on the pernicious project to destroy humans from conception to unnatural death. Leftists and RINOs in Congress colluded with among others, leftist academics, Hollywood, Christian apostates and heretics within the church, propagandists who self-identify as “journalists,” and, of course, Big Tech.

Big Techies have been colluding during a long game of 3D chess while Republicans have been in a corner playing tiddlywinks and occasionally wondering where their winkies disappeared to. (They disappeared long ago during the Great Gelding of Republicans in year … oh, I can’t remember. It was so long ago.)

And now we’re on the verge of the Great Purge of conservatives from society.

Those who had eyes to see discerned the oppression goose-stepping toward the center in stocking feet. Those with 20/5 vision tried to warn the flocks. They’re still trying to warn them. But the tyrants are now in our midst, and they’re replacing noise-cancelling socks with speech-cancelling jackboots. The center is not holding.

First Twitter suspended the accounts of President Trump, General Michael Flynn, and Sidney Powell. The collaborators at Google, Apple, and Facebook joined in the Purge.

Next came Amazon banning Parler—the up and coming Twitter competitor—from its web-hosting service. Apparently Jack Dorsey held his breath and stomped his feet at the mere thought of competition. Once servers refuse to host social media platforms like Parler, those platforms are toast. This is Big Brother on steroids.

And then there’s CNN business “reporter” Oliver Darcy who wrote this on Friday:

[I]t is time TV carriers face questions for lending their platforms to dishonest companies that profit off of disinformation and conspiracy theories. After all, it was the very lies that Fox, Newsmax, and OAN spread that helped prime President Trump’s supporters into not believing the truth.

This from the “news” organization that refused to ask Biden any hard questions before the election and that censored news stories in order to shovel Biden, the malleable and dim marionette, into the seat of power.

Even a Democrat lawmaker got into the rollicking censorship fun. New Jersey assemblyman Paul Moriarty (distant relative perhaps of Professor James Moriarty, arch-nemesis of Sherlock Holmes?) texted a Comcast executive with this subtle message:

Fox and Newsmax, both delivered to my home by your company, are complicit. What are you going to do??? You feed this garbage, lies and all.

Some conservatives have drawn a line in the virtual sand, saying they refuse to be forced off Facebook. They don’t see that the Tech Oligarchs—now including Bezos-the-Bezillionaire—are not trying to force them off. Quite the contrary. The Oligarchs and Overlords are trying to keep conservatives trapped in their virtual prisons. They’re trying to prevent conservatives from leaving by cutting off all other means of communicating ideas in the public square or to friends.

If you want to communicate far and wide with friends old and new, you will be able to do it only on platforms created by the Oligarchs and Overlords and only within the speech parameters they create and impose—on their “neutral platforms.” The Tech Oligarchs don’t want us to leave their fiefdoms. They want us to stay and remain under their sclerotic poisoned thumbs.

It’s not just conservatives who are concerned about tech tyranny. Kate Ruane, attorney for the ACLU, issued a statement via Twitter last Friday saying,

[I]t should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions.

And Kevin Roose, technology columnist for the New York Times echoes the worries of many on both sides of the political aisle—but mainly on the right—about the power of social media wielded with no accountability and no transparency:

Above all, Mr. Trump’s muzzling provides a clarifying lesson in where power resides in our digital society — not just in the precedent of law or the checks and balances of government, but in the ability to deny access to the platforms that shape our public discourse. Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Zuckerberg’s names have never appeared on a ballot. But they have a kind of authority that no elected official on earth can claim.

While leftists have spent four years calling Trump a Nazi, tyrant and dictator, did he ever try to do what leftists are doing now? Has Trump or any other Republican ever attempted to compel or censor speech?

And this is what Never-Trumpers and their small-minded obsession with Trump’s pugilistic rhetoric have brought to our doorsteps. Never-Trumpers with their beady little myopic eyes still can’t see that without Trump’s pugilism, leftists would not yet have revealed their game plan, because unlike Trump, leftists, like the unctuous Obama and arrogant Oligarchs in charge of Big Tech—which is to say, our lives—are more practiced at the art of political deception.

Leftists and RINOs scorn the idea that drove thousands of law-abiding non-insurrectionists to Washington D.C., which is that the election was stolen. Curiously, those same scorners keep their gimlet eyes and forked tongues focused on the Kraken, never acknowledging other concerns of non-insurrectionists like, for example, what liberal Democrat and Biden-voter  senior research psychologist at the  American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology Robert Epstein—a Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden—said in Senate Judiciary Sub-Committee hearing on the Constitution in July 2019:

Google presents a serious threat to democracy and human autonomy. … Data I’ve collected since 2016 show that Google displays content to the American public that is biased in favor of one political party—a party I happen to like, but that’s irrelevant. No private company should have either the right or the power to manipulate large populations without their knowledge. … [D]emocracy as originally conceived cannot survive Big Tech as currently empowered.

Epstein’s earlier research showed that millions of votes were shifted to Hillary in 2016, and post 2020-election research showed that millions were shifted to Biden by Google’s tricksy algorithms.

They’re also ignoring what liberal Democrat Senator Ron Wyden said in Feb. 2020 and which sounds a lot like what conservative non-insurrectionists are being pilloried by leftists for saying:

I fear the 2020 election will make 2016 look like small potatoes. The list of threats and vulnerabilities is enough to give you a migraine.

There were the ES&S voting machines that for years came with preinstalled remote access software.

There’s the fact that Russia hacked an election vendor called VR Systems in the summer of 2016.

VR systems machines in North Carolina malfunctioned on Election Day that year, and one polling place had to shut down for hours. It took two and a half years before the Department of Homeland Security investigated what happened.

Right now, many election officials across the country are buying election systems they believe are high-tech, but they’re vulnerable to hacking and out-of-date the moment they come out of the box.

There is the spread of mobile voting apps like Voatz that have never been vetted by top security experts.

There’s a reason cybersecurity experts have been sounding the alarm for years, warning that putting computers between a voter and their ballot is a recipe for disaster.

What happens when the “glitch” changes a candidate’s vote totals by just 2 or 5 percent, instead of 50 percent? What happens when a glitch shuts down machines in some precincts and not others, disenfranchising voters and skewing election results?

Five states still exclusively use hackable, paperless voting machines, and nine other states still use paperless machines in some counties.

The problems are daunting … but the solutions are clear.

My bill, the PAVE Act, mandates the three key priorities that experts most universally recommended—paper ballots, routine, post-election risk-limiting audits, and federal cybersecurity standards for election systems.

… Senator Klobuchar introduced the Senate version of the SAFE Act, which I’m proud to co-sponsor. The SAFE Act has all three key elements recommended by our nation’s top cybersecurity experts: paper ballots, security standards and post-election audits, as well as the funding necessary to make sure states can live up to the new standards.

There is another obstacle to the Oligarchs’ domination of infinity and beyond. It is Senator Josh Hawley, virtually the only Congressman to take on Big Tech by calling for social media platforms to lose Section 230 protections from liability. Section 230 protections apply to “neutral platforms” which Twitter and Facebook with all their censoring, de-platforming, and slammer-tossing clearly are not.

So, the whipsmart and courageous Josh Hawley had to be taken out by the delicate-fingered. His effort to demonstrate that Pennsylvania’s illegal and unconstitutional extension of the voting deadline matters provided just the opportunity the slimy Tech Oligarchs, Dems, and RINOs needed to do just that.

The problem for the delicate-fingered and their congressional collaborators was Hawley’s objections alone would not have been sufficient. The Oligarchs, conscience-free Dems, and RINOs needed something more.

And then the anarchists gave them the crisis they needed. Flying to their virtual barns, the Oligarchs and their collaborators hauled out their waiting pitchforks, tar, and feathers. Sparks flying from their fingertips, they demanded Hawley resign, accusing him of contributing to an insurrection. Then more gelded Republicans came creeping out of their dark corners squeaking in their high castrated voices that they would no longer support Hawley’s effort.

Somehow the well-respected and reasonable journalist Byron York didn’t notice how crazy the idea that Pennsylvania violated the Constitution was. In a piece titled “The Election Lawsuit Trump Should Win,” York wrote:

The court fight over Pennsylvania’s election rules … involves a fundamental issue that is important to all 50 states. … putting aside the specifics of the Pennsylvania situation, the matter concerns a hugely important principle, which is the constitutional authority of state legislatures to make election law for their states.

York’s essay is an important read for anyone who may not know the details of the Pennsylvania mess.

Not even Trump is guilty of “incitement to insurrection,” let alone Hawley. In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, attorney Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, known during his years as a D.C. prosecutor as “protestor prosecutor,” writes that “The president didn’t mention violence on Wednesday, much less provoke or incite it.”

All tyrants use crises to expand powers that are never relinquished. They inflame public fears about threats to their safety from disease, from foreign enemies, or from dangers lurking in their midst. They are skilled at fomenting social division, imposing censorship, and disseminating propaganda to acquire more control. What’s next? Facial recognition cameras everywhere? Then a social credit system like China has?

There’s something rotten in the Upside Down ruled by the Oligarchs and administered by their algorithmically determined minions who control the speech by which ideas are disseminated. Somewhere along the life journeys of the Oligarchs, they lost sight of the meaning of the First Amendment, which was intended to protect unpopular speech—not just the speech leftists like. Who knows, maybe one day the only way conservatives will be able to communicate is via underground newspapers. So, hold on to those archaic printing presses, my friends. I think we’re gonna need ‘em.

Listen to this article read by Laurie: 

Please consider a gift to the Illinois Family Institute.
As always, your gift to IFI is tax-deductible and greatly appreciated!

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

By now many Americans have learned what slimy, deceitful hypocrites California governor Gavin Newsom and his wealthy, well-connected friends are. In a stunning act of arrogant “do what I say, not what I do, PEONS,” he and his privileged co-scofflaws dined at an exclusive restaurant in Napa Valley—indoors without masks—in violation of his own rules.

His co-scofflaws included Dustin Corcoran, the CEO of the California Medical Association, and Janus Norman, the group’s lobbyist and senior vice president. Apparently, some medical professionals don’t really think dining indoors mask-less with friends puts their lives at risk. Now I’m waiting for all of Hollywood, the Democrat Party, and the faux-journalists at CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post to explode in paroxysms of sanctimonious rage and primal fear at the prospect of the imminent deaths of all the people these twelve scofflaws will infect.

But don’t worry, Newsom is very very sorry he got caught.

The reality is many—perhaps most—leftists don’t believe the alarmist claims they exploit for political—that is, anti-Trump—purposes. In the midst of the first COVID-19 surge, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot commanded her subjects to forgo haircuts, while she—unmasked—had her hair done because she wanted to look good in front of the cameras and because she cares about her “hygiene”—unlike, presumably, her subjects. After the election, she joined her subjects in the street for a victory celebration and then promptly put the kibosh on their Thanksgiving celebrations saying, “You must cancel the normal Thanksgiving plans, particularly if they include guests that do not live in your immediate household.”

She followed that up with her Thanksgiving “advisory”:

– Stay home unless for essential reasons

– Stop having guests over—including family members you do not live with

– Avoid non-essential travel

– Cancel traditional Thanksgiving plans

Not to be outdone in hypocrisy or authoritarian intrusiveness, Oregon’s “openly bisexual” governor Kate Brown has issued these commands, which, if not followed, can result in  fines up to $1,250 or 30 days in jail:

• Private Social Events—limited to two households or six individuals in a closed group (including Thanksgiving)

• Wear a mask in your own home on Thanksgiving, only removing it when eating

• Don’t leave your home during the two-week shutdown

So much for “our bodies, ourselves.”

While in June Brown said “she believes the use of tear gas against protesters is unacceptable,” she is now working with “state police and local law enforcement” to ensure compliance with her Thanksgiving orders.  Think about that for a minute.

This is the same governor who allowed the creation of the potential super-spreader rebel state of CHAZ/CHOP in six blocks of Portlandia and who allowed mostly violent potential super-spreader protests to ravage the rest of Portlandia. So, does bisexual Brown really believe gatherings of ten are highly likely to be lethal gatherings?

Privileged leftists who dine at uber-swanky, $350 per person ($35-45 per glass of wine) restaurants are utterly cavalier about destroying people’s livelihoods while they do not themselves believe that socializing mask-less puts everyone in mortal danger. Newsom and other privileged Democrats wield their inordinate power recklessly, destroying countless small businesses while sating their gourmet appetites on the finest food the monied can buy.

When I refer to “alarmist claims,” I’m not suggesting that the Wuhan Red Death is not alarming or that the death rate is not tragic. I’m suggesting that the claims of leftists about the virus are alarmist in that they are not balanced by either the inclusion of all relevant statistics or by a modicum of humility about what is known about treatment and prevention.

For example, while leftists blame Wuhan virus spikes on the evil mask-questioners who walk among us purportedly like Grim Reapers, they rarely if ever discuss the worldwide Wuhan spikes in countries with more stringent lockdown and mask mandates.

When areas lock down, virus infections stall. When lockdowns end, virus infections increase. But we can’t afford the social, psychological, physical, and economic consequences of locking down forever.

Rational people understand that a contagion like the Wuhan virus will spread. What is needed are good therapeutics and herd immunity achieved via a combination of infections and vaccines. Social distancing for those most at risk of serious complications and/or death is wise. Social distancing for healthy people under 60, school closures, and business lockdowns are foolhardy at minimum and downright dangerous for many people.

While COVID-infected people should mask if they must go out, evidence that widespread masking of healthy people prevents COVID is scanty. According to the New York Times, a recent, large, randomized study out of Denmark provides evidence for what many have been saying:

The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant.

Lead author of the study, Dr. Henning Bundgaard, stated that his study indicated that “not a lot” is gained “from wearing a mask.”

Perhaps it’s past time for political leaders to abandon mask mandates for children and healthy adults under 60. And surely, it’s past time for the mask-obsessed among us to stop verbally attacking those who choose not to mask as irresponsible, ignorant, uncaring, selfish, evil killers.

As the nightmarish 2020 draws to a close, there are reasons for optimism. President Trump’s Operation Warp Speed has  resulted in the development of not one but two highly effective vaccines at warp speed. As of this writing, both Moderna and Pfizer have developed vaccines that are about 95% effective, and evidence suggests that vaccine-induced immunity may last years and be more effective than immunity that develops from contracting COVID-19.

So, we have reasons to believe that in a few months, life will be able to return to normal. In the meantime, school closures must end. There has never been any science suggesting that schools should have closed. If children contract COVID-19, the statistical likelihood that they will survive is 99.99998%.

Annually, about 4,000 children die in car accidents with 630 of those being 12 or younger; 800 children drown; and in the 2019-2020 flu season, 188 children died. So far about 130 children have died from COVID-19. Anytime leftists want to impose a restriction on the freedom of others, they ask, “Isn’t saving the life of even one person worth the sacrifice?” So, are we going to prohibit all children from riding in cars except for essential activities? Are we going to prohibit all children from swimming in pools, ponds, lakes, rivers, and oceans? Are we going to close schools every year during flu season? If not, why not?

Those parents whose children live in homes with at-risk family members can choose to keep their children home. Those teachers who are in an at-risk group can stay home. But all schools should open. Even leftist New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof recently and grudgingly admitted that Trump has long been right on school closures:

Trump has been demanding for months that schools reopen, and on that he seems to have been largely right. Schools, especially elementary schools, do not appear to have been major sources of coronavirus transmission, and remote learning is proving to be a catastrophe for many low-income children. …

Democrats helped preside over school closures that have devastated millions of families and damaged children’s futures. … In both Europe and the United States, schools have not been linked to substantial transmission, and teachers and family members have not been shown to be at extra risk. …  Meanwhile, the evidence has mounted of the human cost of school closures.

Leftists have provided ample evidence of their poor judgment, their Faustian willingness to abandon principles to acquire power, their Machiavellian abuse of power to circumscribe liberty, their hypocrisy, and their elitism. We better hope Americans awaken from their “woke” stupor before it’s too late.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Newsom-and-Lightfoot-and-Brown-Oh-My.mp3

We take very seriously the trust you place in Illinois Family Institute when you send a gift.
We understand that we are accountable before you and God to honor your trust. 

IFI is supported by voluntary donations from good people like you.

Americans educated by government today are, for the most part, hopelessly ignorant of their own nation’s history—and that’s no accident. They’re beyond ignorant when it comes to civics, too. On the history of the rest of the world, or the history of communism, Americans are generally clueless as well. This was all by design, of course.

After generations of flying under the radar, the ongoing corruption of history education in public schools is now suddenly the topic du jour. With the spread of the New York Times’ discredited 1619 Project aiming to “reframe” history through the lens of slavery, which even the New York Times’ own fact-checker called out, Americans everywhere are suddenly paying attention to what’s being taught to impressionable children at taxpayer expense.

President Donald Trump recently blamed the escalating mayhem in the streets on indoctrination by schools and the media. This month, he blasted the “toxic propaganda” being peddled as “history” in American classrooms. To deal with it, the president even said he will sign an executive order to “promote patriotic education.”

The reason why history is being re-written is hardly a mystery. In George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel “1984,” the totalitarian ruling Party’s motto explaining its strategy is: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” And it’s very true—whoever controls the historical narrative will be able to shape the future. Liberty-minded Americans and truth are currently losing the battle—big time.

Totalitarians have long understood the power of historical narratives. Consider Chairman Mao’s “Cultural Revolution” in communist China. Under the guise of purging remnants of the old ways of capitalism and tradition, Mao’s communist storm troopers did their best to destroy the records and evidences of thousands of years of Chinese history. Books were burned and monuments destroyed in an orgy of destruction.

After true history was erased and disfigured, the Chinese Communist Party was able to re-write history on a blank slate to suit its own agenda. Especially important to that effort was the indoctrination of children in government schools. Everything ancient and traditional was portrayed as primitive or even evil, while the new party line surrounding the supposed glories and progress of communism was force-fed to China’s youth.

America’s ongoing cultural revolution has not been quite as dramatic, violent, or thorough—so far. But if left unchecked, the results of this long-term operation may turn out to be just as deadly. And there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind about the effectiveness of the effort to re-write the history of the United States, Western Civilization, and even the world.

Consider the data. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s 2018 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), known as the “nation’s report card,” just 15 percent of American students were at or above the “proficient” level in history. When it comes to civics, less than one in four U.S. eighth-grade students performed at or above “proficient” in 2018 on the NAEP, the latest year for which scores are available.

Keeping in mind the wild bias of the Education Department (some 99.7 percent of the bureaucrats’ contributions to a presidential candidate in the 2016 election went to Hillary Clinton), even those numbers probably drastically overstate the true level of historical and civic understanding of U.S. students.

Contrast the dismal scores with previous generations. There was a time when Americans were the best educated people on the planet—especially when it came to history and civics. According to prominent French scholar Alexis de Tocqueville, who visited America in the early-to-mid 1800s and recorded his observations in two volumes before government hijacked education, “every citizen … is … taught the doctrines and evidences of his religion, the history of his country, and the leading features of the Constitution.”

Some areas on the Western frontier and the deep South were not quite as advanced educationally. However, in the more populous and developed areas, “it is extremely rare to find a man imperfectly acquainted with all these things, and a person wholly ignorant of them is a sort of phenomenon,” de Tocqueville continued.

Today, it’s just the opposite: Finding a person who understands the history of America or the leading features of its Constitution is a sort of phenomenon.

The Re-Writing of History in America

The process of re-writing history was a long one. Unlike Mao’s Cultural Revolution, which took about a decade, those seeking to erase and distort America’s incredible and unique history were forced to proceed slowly, working over decades and generations rather than accomplishing it all in one fell swoop. But concrete evidence of this deliberate plot has surfaced periodically since at least the 1940s.

In the early 1950s, Congress became suspicious about the scheming of the major tax-exempt foundations, a subject covered extensively in part 7 of this series on education. To deal with the issue, lawmakers formed the Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, sometimes referred to as the “Reece Committee” after its chairman.

What investigators found should have shocked America to the core. In its final report, the select committee reported that the major foundations of the day, which still exist, had “supported a conscious distortion of history.” The foundations also sought to hijack education for the purpose of undermining American constitutional principles and liberty, investigators found.

One of the expert witnesses who testified during the select committee’s investigation, attorney and investigator Aaron Sargent, an expert in subversion through education, put it clearly. “They sought to create a blackout of history by slanting and distorting historical facts,” Sargent testified about the goals of the major tax-exempt foundations in the education field. “They introduced a new and revolutionary philosophy—one based on the teachings of John Dewey.”

By the time of the congressional probe, the situation was so serious that Norman Dodd, the chief investigator for the committee, said the foundations had orchestrated a “revolution” in the United States. The revolution “could not have occurred peacefully or with the consent of the majority unless education in the United States had prepared in advance to endorse it,” Dodd told lawmakers in his sworn testimony. The attack on real history in school was a crucial element of that.

Of course, the situation only got worse from there. By 1980, pseudo-historian Howard Zinn, a radical exposed in declassified FBI documents as a Communist Party member, published his book “A People’s History of the United States.” It’s a favorite in public schools. More than 3 million copies have been sold so far, shaping the minds and attitudes of countless millions of Americans while turning them against their own nation and their own political institutions that guaranteed individual liberty for so long.

The propaganda “history” book was full of obvious lies, as exposed most recently by scholar Mary Grabar in her book “Debunking Howard Zinn.” The deception was strategic, too, and powerful. The lies begin right at the start of the book, portraying Columbus as a genocidal monster, and continue onward from there.

“We were really no better than the Nazis in the way Zinn presents it,” Grabar told The Epoch Times.

It was carefully calculated. “Rewriting history is what communists do,” continued Grabar, who also serves as a resident fellow at the Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization. “They don’t want people to know about any other form of government or to remember a time when there was freedom and abundance. Like Zinn, the Marxists of today want young people to be so disgusted with their own country that they become inspired to overthrow it.”

While demonizing the United States and Western civilization more broadly, Zinn and other communists work hard to conceal the history of communism—“the horrors of starvation, gulags, repression, and mass murder,” Grabar explained. Interestingly, there were clear parallels between Zinn’s fake history and a history written by Communist Party USA chief William Z. Foster published in 1951 dubbed “Outline Political History of the Americas.” Foster wrote openly about how crucial hijacking education would be for the Soviet-style communist regime he envisioned for America.

When starting the project, Grabar said she already knew Zinn’s book was biased. “But even I was surprised by how blatantly and deliberately Zinn lied,” she said, urging students, parents, and community members to use her book to refute the propaganda with facts.

More recently, the New York Times released its “1619 Project,” the brainchild of Nikole Hannah-Jones. Like Zinn’s book, it’s essentially fake history, as historians from across the political spectrum—and even the New York Times’ own fact-checker—publicly confirmed. Like Zinn’s book, it seeks to “reframe” America’s history as one based on oppression, slavery, and racism rather than liberty. And like Zinn’s fake history, the 1619 Project is now being used in public schools across America.

Perhaps most alarming about Hannah-Jones’s false narrative is the notion that racism and evil are embedded “in the very DNA” of America. In other words, there’s nothing short of the complete annihilation of the United States’ very foundations and essence that could possibly resolve the real and imagined shortcomings. The message of the project was obvious and clear: Death to America!

In reality, the truth about American history is almost exactly the opposite of what the project presents. The principles upon which the nation was founded—“all men are create equal,” for instance, and are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”—paved the way for abolishing slavery worldwide while facilitating the greatest expansion of human freedom and prosperity in world history.

Despite the obvious lies and deception, Hannah-Jones received a Pulitzer Prize for her work on the 1619 Project. Ironically, though, New York Times writer Walter Duranty also won a Pulitzer Prize for peddling lies and communist propaganda. In Duranty’s case, he infamously parroted Stalin’s obvious propaganda and covered up the Soviet genocide in Ukraine that killed by some estimates up to 10 million people.

Effects of Fake History

This strategic re-writing of history in public schools across America has led to dramatic shifts in Americans’ attitudes, values, beliefs, and worldview. For example, national pride among Americans, who arguably live in the richest and freest nation in human history, has reached historic lows, according to a Gallup poll released this summer. Among younger Americans, just one in five are extremely proud to be American, while among those 65 and older, just over half are extremely proud.

But the real dangers are becoming clear, too. A 2019 survey by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that 7 in 10 millennials said they are likely to vote for a socialist. Fully 36 percent of millennials support communism, the survey found. And just 57 percent of them believe the Declaration of Independence guarantees freedom and equality better than the Communist Manifesto. A generation ago, these numbers would have been inconceivable.

“When we don’t educate our youngest generations about the historical truth of 100 million victims murdered at the hands of communist regimes over the past century, we shouldn’t be surprised at their willingness to embrace Marxist ideas,” explained Victims of Communism (VOC) Memorial Foundation Executive Director Marion Smith.

“We need to redouble our efforts to educate America’s youth about the history of communist regimes and the dangers of socialism today.”

In comments to The Epoch Times, VOC Director of Academic Programs Murray Bessette explained that American public schools simply do not teach the true history of communism. Part of the reason for that, he said, is the “ideological character of many involved in developing and delivering curricula for American schools.” Parents must insist on a full account of history, and teachers must seek out programs and materials that teach the whole truth, added Bessette.

The effects of these false narratives pushed on children in government schools are becoming more and more obvious. Just think of the brainwashed armies of young Americans rampaging through the streets rioting, looting, killing, protesting, and destroying. Funded by rich and powerful individuals, companies, and foundations, their goal is to “fundamentally transform” what they view as an evil America. And because they don’t know the truth about their own nation or its history, many genuinely believe in what they’re doing.

Speaking at an Independence Day celebration this summer, the president of the United States hit the nail on the head. “The violent mayhem we have seen in the streets of cities that are run by liberal Democrats, in every case, is the predictable result of years of extreme indoctrination and bias in education, journalism, and other cultural institutions,” Trump explained. “Against every law of society and nature, our children are taught in school to hate their own country, and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes, but that they were villains.”

Their goal, the president correctly observed, is not to improve America, but to destroy it.

Fortunately, now that the problem has been identified, steps are being taken to address it. And at the core of that process will be ensuring that young Americans understand the truth about their own nation’s history. During remarks made on Constitution Day, Trump blasted left’s distortion of American history with lies and deception.

“There is no better example than the New York Times’ totally discredited 1619 Project,” said Trump, calling it “toxic” propaganda that would “destroy” America. “This project rewrites American history to teach our children that we were founded on the principle of oppression, not freedom.”

In reality, as Trump correctly pointed out, “nothing could be further from the truth.” “America’s founding set in motion the unstoppable chain of events that abolished slavery, secured civil rights, defeated communism and fascism, and built the most fair, equal, and prosperous nation in human history,” the president declared.

The president also promised action to reverse the progress of the history destroyers and re-writers. “We must clear away the twisted web of lies in our schools and classrooms, and teach our children the magnificent truth about our country,” he said. “We want our sons and daughters to know that they are the citizens of the most exceptional nation in the history of the world.”

To accomplish that, grants are being awarded by the National Endowment for the Humanities to help develop a pro-American curriculum that “celebrates the truth about our nation’s great history,” Trump said. He also said he would soon sign an executive order to create a national “1776 Commission” that will promote patriotic education that will “encourage our educators to teach our children about the miracle of American history.”

Whether the rot and corruption that has taken over the teaching of history and civics in America’s government schools can be reversed remains to be seen. But diagnosing an illness is the first step to treating and curing it. Now that Americans are starting to understand what’s killing their nation, serious efforts can be made to stop the bleeding. Teaching children the truth about U.S. history will be a good first step.

This article was originally published at The Epoch Times, and is part 18 in a series examining education in the United States.