With more and more states in the region and beyond moving to protect the lives of unborn babies or at least restrict the mass killing, abortionists in Illinois are busier than ever, according to the abortion industry in the state and news reports about the gruesome phenomenon.

The Associated Press, a far-left pro-abortion propaganda service masquerading as an objective news agency, reported last week that hundreds of women were being lured to Southern Illinois each week to kill their pre-born children. Many more are expected.

The pregnant women are coming from almost a dozen states where authorities started reining in the unchecked slaughter after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. In fact, even before the Dobbs decision, the flow of victims into Illinois was growing as states like Texas cracked down.

Abortionists in Illinois can hardly keep up, they told reporters.

“With every piece of litigation, with every new constitutional amendment, with every new abortion restriction in a state that has some access, we are on this teeter-totter of, ‘what can we do here to make more space for the people who are going to be fleeing their home state?’” abortion “doctor” Colleen McNicholas with Fairview Heights’ Planned Parenthood was quoted as saying by the AP.

According to news reports, the waitlist at the Southern Illinois abortion operation has gone from two days to three weeks in recent months, even as staffers now do 10-hour shifts and work Saturdays. Now the leadership is talking about keeping the doors open on Sunday, too.

More than 10,000 pre-born babies are forecast to be killed there just this year. Meanwhile, the abortionists have turned an RV into a mobile baby-killing center that travels around the inner perimeter of the state perpetrating abortions.

Other local abortionists are seeing similar surges as multiple new “abortuaries” open their doors across Southern Illinois. Two opened in Carbondale late last year, the AP reported.

“Any additional decision [to restrict abortion by nearby states] has the potential to really change demand again,” abortionist McNicholas continued, as if killing babies were just like any other good or service to be provided in the marketplace. “It’s like crisis management every day of the year.”

Florida, despite GOP super-majorities in both houses of the legislature, has also become a Mecca for women from other states in the region seeking abortions. As in Illinois, the number of unborn babies killed in the Sunshine State has surged dramatically as other Southern states moved against the carnage.

However, legislation being considered by Florida lawmakers and a proposed constitutional amendment may shut that option down, too. That would increase the numbers even further in Illinois, which has some of the most radical and permissive abortion laws in the entire world.

In recent years, Planned Parenthood has been forced to acknowledge the grotesque racism and white supremacy of its brutal founder, Margaret Sanger. Among other evils, Sanger was a leading advocate of eugenics, deliberately targeting minorities and others she deemed unfit. That stench of that legacy looms large.

One key purpose of the AP article touting the surge in abortions in Illinois was obviously to mock those seeking to protect the unborn in other states. A childish taunt, the AP “reporter” and the abortion industry were letting readers know the slaughter will continue regardless of what other states do.

However, it cannot continue forever. As America’s founding documents make clear, God endowed all people with the right to life, and government exists primarily to protect that and other rights. As the Bible makes clear, too, the purpose of government is to punish evil, and God clearly defines murder as such.

Some of the nation’s most prominent legal minds have pointed out that governments — even in states like Illinois — have a constitutional obligation to protect the right to life of all people, including pre-born people. There can be no “state right” to allow abortion or any other murders, much less to subsidize it with public money.

In the meantime, though, state and local authorities in Illinois and beyond can and should start exploring options to rein in the savagery taking place under color of law. Nobody would tolerate it if Illinois legalized the killing of post-birth children and lured people to the state to carry out the grisly task. This cannot be tolerated either.

With more than 60 million babies massacred over the last 50 years, Illinois and the nation must deal urgently with these ongoing atrocities. Someday, civilized people will almost certainly look back at this much as Americans today look back on the slave trade or National Socialist (Nazi) concentration camps.

The time to stop this evil is now.

Have you ever wondered if the Church should continue to engage in the culture wars? After all, we will never eradicate evil from the world, and sometimes it feels like the water is pouring into our boats faster than we can bail it out.

Plus, every time we gain ground on one front, we seem to lose ground on another.

Why bother fighting these time consuming, emotionally draining, financially costly battles? Wouldn’t it be better if we put all our efforts into winning the lost, thereby making an eternal, irreversible impact?

Some would also argue that things will only get worse before Jesus returns, and since we know He’s coming very soon, there’s no use trying to slow down, let alone stop, the onslaught of evil. We’re just trying to ‘forestall the inevitable.’

How should we respond to these objections and concerns?

When it comes to the theological objection, namely, that things will only get worse before Jesus returns, I have two responses.

1. First, although there are verses that speak of darkness and apostasy before the Lord returns, there are also verses that speak of a glorious harvest of souls coming into the kingdom at the end of the age. Some passages even speak of light shining brightly in the midst of gross darkness.In short, as I understand the relevant portions of Scripture, the end of the age will be characterized by parallel extremes of good and evil, of divine activity and satanic activity. I hardly see a picture of only gloom and doom.
2. Second, none of us know how soon the Lord will return, which means that we can’t say, “We know this is the final generation, so why bother to impact the culture?”I came to faith 51 years ago, and we were told Jesus was coming any minute back then. The prophecies were all lining up and the bestselling Christian book of the day made it clear that we were in the tail end of the last days. That was more than one-half century ago!Just think of how completely paralyzed the Church would be if every generation had this same mentality. “Why bother taking a stand? We’re out of here any minute now!” 

That cannot possibly be a biblical way to think.

Having addressed this theological objection, let me respond to the larger question of why we as followers of Jesus should engage in the culture wars at all.

Why should we fight against abortion?

Why should we oppose racism?

Why should we stand up to injustice?

Why should we push back against LGBTQ+ activism?

First, if we don’t engage the culture, the society will collapse. After all, if we are called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16), without us, the saltiness will be gone and the light will not shine. And with the culture in freefall, it won’t be long before anarchy reigns, before our liberties will be taken away – perhaps even our children taken away.

Second, if we don’t push back against a sinful society, we will lose our conscience and our souls. How can we see evil on full display in front of our eyes and do nothing? To do nothing is to desensitize and dehumanize ourselves.

Third, as Paul wrote in Ephesians 5:8–9, “at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true).” It is in our spiritual DNA to do what is right and good because, by our very born again-nature, we are light.

This is the opposite of the fable of the scorpion and the frog, in which the scorpion stings the frog as it sits on the frog’s back while the frog swims across the river, as a result of which they both die.

When the frog asked why he did it, the scorpion explained that he couldn’t resist the urge, since this was his nature.

In the same (but totally opposite) way, standing up for justice and contending for mercy is what we do as light.

It’s our nature.

Fourth, doing good also means opposing evil, and there are many verses in the New Testament that clearly call us to do what is good. What then, does that good look like in action? What would doing good look like if you were a slaveowner who became a Christian? Just giving your slave a cup of cold water? Or setting your slave free?

Fifth, as we oppose evil, as we call out injustice, as we push back against immorality, we are becoming more like Jesus, being conformed to His image. This is part of our preparation for eternity.

Sixth, God makes clear over and again in His Word that the kind of spirituality He is looking for does not consist of long-winded prayers or pious displays of fasting. Rather, He says clearly, our fasting must be the backdrop for our holy actions, setting the captives free, caring for the orphan and widow, standing up to injustice in the courts (see Isaiah 58).

Seventh, just as we feed the hungry and give to the poor, helping those we can even while knowing that we will never eradicate hunger and poverty, we do the same with the culture wars. We help those we can help. We save a baby’s life when we can. We get an ungodly sex-ed curriculum removed from our local school. We expose discriminatory treatment of a minority colleague in the workplace.

Every life counts, and every battle won has significance.

Eighth, since the Messiah’s mission includes bringing justice to the nations, and since we are His voice and His hands and feet in this world, pursuing justice is part of our divine mission (see Isaiah 42:1-8).

Ninth, by standing up for the downtrodden and hurting, we demonstrate the depth of our relationship with God. As the Lord said with regard to the godly King Josiah, “He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me? declares the LORD.” (Jeremiah 22:16) That is a truly striking verse.

Tenth, when we oppose evil and do good, we are functioning as the Lord’s witnesses, thereby calling the society to account and setting a standard for others to follow. This, too, is part of our gospel calling.

The reality is that, until Jesus returns, we will be in a tug of war with the world, sometimes making real progress and sometimes losing ground.

But either way, we must keep our grip and maintain our resolve, wanting to hand things to the next generation in better shape than we received them while knowing that ultimate victory awaits the Lord’s return.

And while we also keep the Great Commission first and foremost in our hearts and minds, we recognize that Jesus didn’t simply call us to win the lost but to make disciples.

This is how disciples live.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

It appears the racism identified as “anti-racism” and being endorsed all across America is bearing rotten fruit at ever younger ages and in ever more perverse ways.

Just last week, administrators at Edison Middle School in Wheaton, Illinois allowed student members of the blacks-only “Panthers in Black” school club to lecture peers on the intricacies of using various forms of the “n”-word. Students learned who is permitted to use the “n”-word and which “n”-word suffix is appropriate in what context. Parents of students forced to listen to this non-voluntary lecture were not notified ahead of time or asked to sign a permission slip.

Eighteen slides were included in the lecture addressing topics like the importance of Black History Month. This slide was notable for its vagueness. The Panthers in Black advocate for “recognizing” and “promoting” appreciation of African American “achievement, culture, heritage, sacrifices, and accomplishments, including past and current events.” Several things are unclear.

Should those goals serve as pedagogical criteria for determining what is included and excluded in history classes?

Should every racial and ethnic group have their own month or just blacks? Excluding winter and spring breaks, there are only eight months in a school year, not nearly enough to give every racial and ethnic group their own month.

Is “promoting appreciation” of one racial group even an appropriate goal for government schools?

Will the goal of “promoting appreciation” of African American achievement, culture, heritage, sacrifices, and accomplishments in the past and present determine what will be included and excluded in the limited time schools have to teach American and world history? For example, will greater achievements by non-blacks be jettisoned for lesser achievement by blacks?

When discussing the past history of blacks, will the sordid history of the involvement of Africans in enslaving other Africans be shared?

In the slide on the etiquette of using the “n”-word, the Panthers in Black shared the differences between the suffixes “er” and “a” when appended to the “n”-word. According to the Black Panthers, when blacks use the “n”-word with the “a” suffix among themselves, it’s a “term of endearment.” All other races are forbidden from using it.

The black Panthers claimed emphatically that,

African Americans DO NOT use the n-word with the ending of “-er”

But then they also acknowledge that although students “may listen to music or read books that have those two endings of the n-word, it is NOT OKAY to say if you are not African American.” So, do African Americans use the “er” ending or not?

The Panthers in Black moved on to establishing joke rules for all their middle school peers:

“joking around” about race is not a joke and it’s not okay. 

The black Panthers say this means no jokes about “past events,” Black Lives Matter, slavery, skin tone differences, and George Floyd. Imagine if someone had issued this diktat to Richard Pryor. And imagine if Key and Peele, Chris Rock, and Eddie Murphy were prohibited by the censors among us from “joking around about race.”

Are blacks allowed to joke about race? Are they allowed to joke about whites or Asians?

Come to think of it, since all jokes center on some group or some behavior humans engage in, maybe we should ban all jokes.

Most important, since leftists continually appeal to hurt feelings to control what others say and do, shouldn’t there be discussions about the critical importance of free speech in a free society and the concomitant need to tolerate expressions of diverse ideas, some of which make us uncomfortable?

In the two slides about “Race,” the Panthers in Black focused on biracial identities, saying that it’s “not okay” to ask any questions about the race of biracial students’ parents. Ironically, this slide also says,

Race shouldn’t be a reason to treat anyone differently.  

Isn’t that the whole point of their club and their lecture? Aren’t they treating whites different from blacks?

In two slides about hair, the black Panthers explained all the different hair styles blacks use to express themselves and how “big a part of the African American culture” hair is. But non-blacks are commanded by the Panthers not to ask any questions about this important part of their identities. Seems like a recommendation for cultural insensitivity to me.

The black Panthers also assert that it’s “offensive!” to ask Muslim girls if they’re hot wearing a hijab or why they’re wearing a dress in the summer. The Panthers don’t demonstrate much tolerance for the innocent curiosity of 11-year-olds.

The second to last slide was an invitation to African American students only to join the exclusive Panthers in Black club, assuring non-blacks that they are willing to talk to them.

The presentation concluded with a slide showing the Black Power raised fist accompanied by these words:

THANK YOU

We appreciate you for listening to our presentation!

“Thanks” are not in order, since listening to their lecture was compulsory.

Yes, this is racism and it’s dividing a society that was moving steadily toward a more unified country until leftist ideas spawned in colleges and universities made their malignant way into every corner of America. And now the cancer is systemic.

Watch this video clip of a parent responding to the racist presentation at the District 200 School Board meeting. (H/T Break-Through Ideas):

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/School-Approved-Racism-in-Western-Suburb-of-Chicago.mp3

Once upon a time, I held a naïve hope that public education could be pried loose from the grimy grip of self-righteous, presumptuous, intolerant, diversity-loathing, idea-banning, illiberal bullying leftists fluent in Newspeak. That was then. This is now.

Now I know that is not possible—at least not in time to educate properly children who are currently in school or soon-to-be in school. There are good signs that a movement is afoot to challenge the MAN—who now is a homosexual, drag queen who uses the pronouns fae, faer, faers, and faerself.

A few communities are battling to replace their partisan/activist school boards. There is growing vocal opposition to the promotion of critical race theory-derived assumptions, gender theory, and obscene material. And a few state legislatures are banning cross-dressing boys from participation in girls’ sports.

While these are significant developments, even if successful, they are but a pea shot into an ossified, systemically biased, massive infrastructure composed of leftist controlled school administrations, school boards, state boards of education, state legislatures and ancillary leftist controlled organizations like teachers’ unions; the American Library Association; the Modern Language Association; the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, the Illinois “Safe” Schools Alliance, and all the organizations that profit from selling their racist “anti-racism” and pro-homosexual, pro-“trans”-cultic snake oil to public schools—all in the purported service of “safety” and “inclusion.”

Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that in recent years, Illinois’ ideologically non-diverse General Assembly has passed several laws requiring taxpayer-funded schools to preach leftist assumptions about “gender” and sexuality starting in kindergarten and to indoctrinate faculty with those same assumptions through “professional development.”

Here are articles about three bills that passed requiring leftist indoctrination in public schools:

Leftist Public School Indoctrination Bill Moving Forward in Springfield

Another K-12 School Indoctrination Bill Coming Through the Illinois Sewage Pipeline

Leftist State Board of Ed and Lawmakers Collude to Indoctrinate Illinois Students

It’s not just Illinois, the Land of Illiberalism that’s corrupting public education. What’s taking place just over the border in Wisconsin illustrates the presumptuousness of public servants in indoctrination camps that self-identify as “schools.”

Last month, Empower Wisconsin exposed a bit of what an Eu Clair Area School District (ECASD) in Eu Claire, Wisconsin imposed on all staff and faculty during their Feb. 25, 2022 “Equity Professional Development” on “Safe Spaces.” (Is there any word more abused by leftists than “safety”?) A slide presentation included this galling statement:

Remember, parents are not entitled to know their kids’ identities. That knowledge must be earned.

Who put leftists in charge of what parents are entitled to know about their own children? Who gave leftists the moral authority to conclude that parents must earn the right to know their children’s “identities”?

That claim is brazen and presumptuous. For those who have worked in public schools or studied closely what’s been taking place incrementally over the past three decades, such a claim is not, however, surprising. And it’s widely shared by leftists in schools across the country.

The Federalist reported that Superintendent Michael Johnson justified this violation of parental trust by saying he wants to create an “equitable, safe and inclusive” place “for all students.” Further, Johnson said,

Our staff often find themselves in positions of trust with our students. The staff development presentation shared extensive data and information to assist our staff members in our ongoing efforts to create a safe and supportive learning environment for all students. … The ECASD prides itself on being a school district that makes all students feel welcome and safe in our schools.

Does being in a position of trust require staff members to affirm all identities? Does it require concealment of all identities or just the ones staff members have concluded are good, healthy, and morally acceptable?

If staff members found themselves in positions of trust with students who identified as zoophiles, sibling lovers, or polyamorists, would parents have to earn the right to that information?

Are Johnson et al. concerned about cultivating the trust of parents or about making all parents feel welcome and included?

Johnson asserted that “the staff training focused on data showing students who identify as non-heterosexual have a higher incidence rate of mental health issues than heterosexual students.” Did Johnson and his buddies look at long term health risks from “transitioning”?

Did they examine material suggesting that gender dysphoria—like depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation—may be a symptom of some other underlying condition or caused by trauma?

Did Johnson and his propaganda collaborators look at the data and information regarding detransitioning?

Have Johnson and his ideological compeers researched deeply the issue of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria—a social contagion that is resulting in explosive growth in the number of adolescent girls suddenly deciding they’re boys—a heretofore nonexistent phenomenon?

Every organization leftists cite to justify their efforts to promote their views of “gender” and sexuality in schools are controlled by leftists. And every statistic and tidbit of “information” leftists cite to justify their efforts is arguable. But no debate is permitted by ideological tyrants who presume their subjective assumptions are inarguable objective facts.

I will conclude with this call from philosopher, theologian, and Princeton law professor Robert P. George a year ago–a call that’s even more urgent today:

If you have kids in public schools in New Jersey or a state that has similar laws mandating the indoctrination of children in public schools on matters of sexuality, and if you do not believe in the “Woke” ideology into which your kids are being indoctrinated, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to get your children out of those schools. The indoctrination literally begins in Kindergarten and First Grade.

The state-run schools in New Jersey and elsewhere now reflect the adoption by the State of an established religion. It is not a traditional religion, and it is not theistic, but it is a religion nonetheless–a system of ideas embodying a particular view of human nature, the human good, human dignity, and what is most important (“sacred”). The public schools are as “religious” today as they were at the beginning when they reflected the Protestant Christianity that was dominant when public education began in the U.S. in the 1830s. The difference is that Protestant Christianity has been replaced by secular progressive ideology.

If secular progressive ideology is not your family’s religion, your kids don’t belong in schools dedicated to promoting it–and to indoctrinating children in it. Your kids should be brought up in your own faith. Allowing them to be educated in a set of dogmas that are antithetical to your own beliefs simply makes no sense.

Get them out.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/If-You-Care-About-Children-and-Americas-Future-Keep-Your-Kids-Out-of-Public-Schools.mp3

Nikole Hannah-Jones is the New York Times Magazine reporter who wrote the 1619 Project which is being used in many schools across the country. The 1619 Project postulates that America began in 1619, when the first black slaves were brought here—not 1776, when the founders declared independence.

Hannah-Jones made an historical faux pas in a tweet the other day, in which she said that the U.S. Civil War began in 1865. She later apologized, claiming that her tweet was just “poorly worded.” She said she knows the conflict that ultimately ended slavery in America began in 1861 and ended in 1865.

We all make mistakes, but I can’t help but feel her historical error reveals her lack of a true grasp of our history. We’re all entitled to our own opinions, but we’re not entitled to our own facts.

Hannah-Jones coincidentally doesn’t have a firm grasp on the concept of parental rights, either. She recently told Chuck Todd on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “I don’t really understand this idea that parents should decide what’s being taught. I’m not a professional educator. I don’t have a degree in social studies or science….I think we should leave that to the educators.”

Gary Bauer, former Under Secretary of Education for President Reagan, reacts to her remarks: “She admits that she’s not a professional educator. She’s right about that. She’s a professional left-wing agitator.”

Bauer adds, “Parents, policymakers and state legislators are right to ban the 1619 Project. It’s garbage! Numerous professional historians have thoroughly debunked it. It has no business in our schools. But she thinks banning her radical screed is a sign of oppression.”

Dr. Carol M. Swain is a prominent black scholar who has taught at Vanderbilt Law School and at Princeton. I spoke with her on my radio show about the ongoing battle over American history.

She told me the 1619 Project presents a “revisionist history. [It postulates that] the country is racist to the core. Black people built the country. Racism defines who we are as a nation.” Swain would remind us: “When slavery was introduced into America, we were British colonists.”

When I asked her about the idea of America being “systemically racist” today, she said that the passage of the Civil Rights laws in the 1960s, “really ended systemic racism under the law. And any racism that continues is not because of our national structure.”

It pains her to see the distortion of our history which is propagandizing whole new generations against America. She said, “I care about America. And I care about race relations, and anything [the Left] pushes takes us backwards.”

Swain also notes that this America-is-and-always-was-racist message has a “crippling” effect to underprivileged children because “they give up before they ever get started.” What a tragedy.

Nonetheless, the “historian” peddling this false narrative of American history is feted today by the left. Fox News notes that Hannah-Jones “was named to TIME’s list of the ‘100 most influential people’ in 2021.” That is scary since she peddles this false narrative that America began because of slavery.

America became America despite the evil practice of slavery. The American founders created the framework whereby slavery could one day be uprooted. And it was—at the cost of about 700,000 lives.

Civil rights leader Bob Woodson of the Woodson Center created the group 1776 Unites, which aims to address our history in an accurate way. He has recently compiled a book entitled, Red, White, and Black: Rescuing American History from Revisionists and Race Hustlers.

I’ve interviewed Woodson on a couple of occasions. He told me in reference to the 1619 Project, “There are all kinds of historical inaccuracies. We at the Woodson center organized 23-plus scholars and activists to confront this 1619. We called ourselves the 1776 Unites.” Many of these scholars are African-American.

There is a battle over history today. But there are a few historical resources that I would point people to. I have a set of The Annals of America, which is a series of volumes put together by the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1976. The first three volumes in this 20-or so book set focus on the settling and the founding eras of America. It provides the text (and context) of the leading documents in American history. God and the Christian faith can be found all over in many of these original sources.

Meanwhile, Yale University has put such key documents on-line as part of their Avalon Project. This is much more trustworthy—since it’s the original sources—than revisionist claptrap sold to us today by the likes of Nikole Hannah-Jones.

There’s a battle over history in our time. And this battle has big implications as to what our nation was, is, and ever will be.

After receiving complaints from donors and bad press, the Salvation Army has removed the guide, “Let’s Talk About Race.” The removal of the guide is a step in the right direction, and we should applaud the charity for its willingness to remove the document. Nonetheless, the organization has not disavowed Critical Race Theory (CRT) or apologized to those they may have offended with divisive statements. Christians, therefore, may praise the move to remove the guide but should remain diligent in the fight against Critical Race Theory and Marxism.

The Salvation Army has released several statements denouncing that they asked donors to apologize for being white. They state, “The Salvation Army has made repeated efforts to clarify that we have never claimed that we believe our donors should apologize for their skin color. … Regardless, false claims that were designed to harm our ability to make Christmas bright for more than 2.5 million Americans in need continue to be repeated by many.” Although some may have made this “false claim,” most understand a demand for an apology based on race was not published in the guide.

Instead, most have criticized the language that was present in the guide. For example, the guide said that donors may be guilty of “White supremacy, White-dominant culture, and unequal institutions and society.” These statements are taken directly from CRT and were crucial elements of the “Let’s Talk About Race” guide. Many have a problem with the language used—not with the Salvation Army taking a stand against racism. All Christians should stand against acts of bigotry. The issue was that the organization utilized language from CRT, a politicized academic philosophy that has no business in any church or charity organization.

Removing the guide is undoubtedly a positive move by the Salvation Army, and we should be encouraged by their willingness to examine the documents they are publishing. However, Christians should not let their guard down. Marxism and CRT are ever-present dangers to the church and are philosophies bent on the destruction of Christianity.

The Salvation Army should go further in its efforts to heal our nation by renouncing any ties to both Marxism and CRT. They should apologize for causing harm, even if it was caused inadvertently. Unity and healing of racial divides can only occur in the foundation of the Word of God and the redemptive power of Jesus Christ, not in leftist agendas.

It is far past time that Christians stop allowing Marxism and collectivism to inform a Christian worldview. The Bible tells us,

“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8). 

We should no longer seek justice as the world sees it, but instead, we should seek God’s redemption and become one body regardless of our race or history.

“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26-28).

If we are walking in the Word of God, neither racism nor Marxist ideology will be present in our lives. Continue to be vigilant in ensuring that your church and the Christian organizations you respect and support do not become corrupted by men’s philosophies and empty deceits.

Take ACTION: Take a moment to thank the Salvation Army for their action in removing the guide. Click HERE to send an email to Commander Brian Peddle and/or visit The Salvation Army’s social media sites to ask that they continue their charity and love through a Gospel based on the Word of God and not political ideologies. Moreover, please click the following links to visit their Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube pages to urge them to reject CRT and Marxism.

How far gone is Illinois? And by “gone,” I mean arrogantly and divisively leftist.

Well, despite statewide and even nationwide condemnation of the proposed “Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards,”  the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) failed to stop the controversial standards.

In a vote delayed by one day, JCAR voted 6-5 along partisan lines to, in effect, approve these standards, which will infuse the assumptions of Critical Race Theory/ identity politics/BLM into 1. all teacher-training programs, 2. all Professional Education Licensing (PEL), and 3. indirectly into all public school classrooms.

Not even yesterday’s plea from the left-leaning Chicago Tribune Editorial Board to JCAR not to pass these controversial standards—standards that the editorial board described as politicized—was sufficient to stop the Democrats in JCAR from further exploiting government schools for leftist propaganda purposes.

Ideological diversity—already a rare commodity in government schools—will be now be further diminished in favor of promoting arguable leftist beliefs about identity, “systems of oppression,” “sex and gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, racism, sexism, homophobia, unearned privilege,” and “Eurocentrism.”

The standards were created by a committee hand-picked by the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), which is controlled by leftists. While having the effect of law, these standards constitute an amendment to existing school code, so they did not have to go through the normal lawmaking process, which would involve more transparency, floor debates in Springfield, and every Illinois lawmaker publicly voting.

In the wake of nationwide criticism of the “woke” standards, the ISBE issued a statement with this chuckle-worthy, chuckleheaded claim:

The standards were developed by a diverse group of educators from around the state.

Just curious, how many in this “diverse group of educators” are critics of Critical Race Theory and BLM, or find fault with the ideas of Ibram X. Kendi, Ta-Nehesi Coates, and Robin DiAngelo?

The ISBE’s statement also said the following:

The Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards apply to teacher preparation programs, not to K-12 school curricula. ISBE also will offer optional professional development on the standards to current educators. Educators and school districts maintain local control over what professional development they choose.

This is a transparent effort to mollify and silence critics of the infusion of leftist beliefs on race, American history, homosexuality, and “trans”-cultism into curricula. But “deplorables” are not stupid. We all know that “teacher preparation” is intended to and will shape both professional development and curricula.

As a result of the widespread condemnation of the leftist-created standards, the ISBE begrudgingly tossed an insignificant sop in the direction of Illinoisans who oppose the divisive politicization of education. Nervous ISBE leftists changed the word “progressive” to “inclusive.” For example, here is an original pre-condemnation sentence from the standards:

The culturally responsive teacher and leader will … Embrace and encourage progressive viewpoints and perspectives that leverage asset thinking toward traditionally marginalized populations.

Here is the worthless, one-word, post-condemnation change ISBE wokesters threw to Illinois serfs:

The culturally responsive teacher and leader will … Embrace and encourage inclusive viewpoints and perspectives that leverage asset thinking toward traditionally marginalized populations.

As I wrote last week, the unelected wokesters on the ISBE committee that created these radical standards think Illinois conservatives are stupid. They think we don’t realize that their definition of “inclusive” excludes conservative viewpoints.

They also think conservatives won’t notice the inclusion of the adverb “traditionally,” which necessarily excludes contemporary marginalized populations, like the theologically orthodox Christian population, which is today excluded, hated, and cancelled.

This is what’s called a distinction without a difference—a distinction intended to dupe the deplorables.

In another document, the ISBE makes another chuckle-worthy, eye-roller of a statement about the effects of these new ideological diktats:

The standards will help combat the teacher shortage. They will help educators become better teachers and experience higher job satisfaction, which makes them more likely to stay in the profession.

No acknowledgment of the teachers who will leave the profession or of those future teachers who will no longer consider teaching in Illinois because they know that Illinois schools are places of oppression that require ideological submission.

Here are just a few of the controversial ideas that Illinois will now force teacher-training programs and professional licensure to impose on all future “teachers, school support personnel” and administrators. Please note, that “identities” include homosexuality, cross-sex impersonation, and “gender fluidity”:

• Value the notion that … there is not one “correct” way of doing or understanding something.

• “Assess how their own biases and perceptions affect their teaching practice and how they access tools to mitigate their own racist, sexist, homophobic, Eurocentric behavior or unearned privilege.”

• Be aware of the effects of power and privilege and the need for social advocacy and social action to better empower diverse students and communities.

• Encourage and affirm the personal experiences … students share in the classroom.

• Consistently solicit students’ input on the curriculum.

• Co-create, with students, the collective expectations and agreements regarding the physical space and social-emotional culture of the classroom.

• Create a risk-taking space that promotes student activism and advocacy.

• Invite family and community members to teach about topics that are culturally specific and aligned to the classroom curriculum or content area.

• Intentionally embrace student identities and prioritize representation in the curriculum.

• Implement and integrate the wide spectrum and fluidity of identities in the curriculum.

• Ensure text selections reflect students’ classroom, community, and family culture.

• Ensure teacher and students co-create content to include a counternarrative to dominant culture.

• Promote robust discussion with the intent of raising consciousness that reflects modern society and the ways in which cultures and communities intersect.

• Consider a broader modality of student assessments [i.e., grades and testing], such as … “social justice work.”

In my mind’s eye, I see more Illinois families planning their exit from public schools and more families planning their exit from this politically “woke,” intellectually slumbering, and morally vacuous state.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Illinois-Passes-Controversial-Leftist-Teacher-Training-Mandate.mp3

Please support the good work of Illinois Family Institute.

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

Regardless of what black Americans think, the police departments that protect and serve their communities should be defunded immediately. At least that is the latest propaganda being peddled in a bizarre new campaign by the far-left American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a radical organization literally founded by members of the Communist Party USA.

According to the ACLU’s new campaign, American police are and always have been racist yahoos brutally oppressing minority communities. Reforms, investigations, firings, and other policy changes will not suffice. Instead, America’s thousands of local police departments must be defunded as soon as possible, with the “savings” being “invested” into priorities established by the ACLU.

In a series of videos purporting to document the last “100 years of history” surrounding policing in America, the far-left group argues that “policing still acts as an occupying force in communities of color.” And so, instead of public funding for police to investigate, punish, and prevent crime, that money should go to “black and brown communities,” the organization said.

A petition that goes with the campaign, which has been signed by almost 150,000 people as of this writing, displays hatred and dishonesty toward America’s police officers — many of whom put their lives on the line to protect their communities. And yet, from the ACLU’s rhetoric, American cops might as well be a pack of wild invaders led by Genghis Khan.

“The policing institutions in our country are deeply entrenched in racism and brutality, and we cannot allow it to continue,” the petition reads. “These inherently systemic issues require immediate and permanent solutions. That requires a bold reimagining of the role police play in our society: It is time to divest from law enforcement and reinvest in the Black and Brown communities [sic] they unjustly target.”

As usual, “defunding police” hysteria by guilt-ridden white liberals and agenda-driven hate-mongers such as those running the ACLU is portrayed as merely a benevolent effort to “help” black people who supposedly cannot help themselves. The narrative is very much akin to liberal campaigns to “save the whales” or “save the baby seals.”

Ironically, though, polling data show that black Americans are overwhelming against defunding the police departments that protect their communities from violent criminals. In fact, according to a Gallup survey released in August 2020 — right at the height of the media and “Black Lives Matter” demonization campaign against supposedly “racist” police — more than eight in ten black Americans wanted the same or a greater police presence.

In short, despite its supposed devotion to “democracy,” the ACLU’s radical agenda to defund police would require ignoring the wishes of the very black Americans it pretends to be concerned about. In fact, the scheme would require that a tiny, fringe minority of radicals be allowed to impose unpopular policy on the rest of the community using undemocratic means.

The ACLU’s “sweeping three-part formula” includes, among other elements, handcuffing the police, “prohibiting” them from enforcing laws against crimes that the ACLU determines are “non-dangerous” using fines or arrest. The money saved by eviscerating police will be “reinvested” into unspecified “alternatives to policing” that will supposedly help communities “thrive.”

Finally, for those “rare instances in which police officers do interact with community members” under the new policing regime, the ACLU proposes to implement “common-sense, iron-clad legal constraints” against police and “protections” for those law-enforcement interacts with. Of course, the U.S. Constitution and all 50 state constitutions already contain such protections.

To advance its dangerous anti-police narrative, the ACLU uses deception, lies, and half-truths. The very first video is based on a fraudulent narrative, painting Rodney King — a wife beater who pleaded guilty to armed robbery — as an innocent victim of racist cops. The fact that he charged at police while intoxicated after a dangerous high-speed chase reaching almost 120 mph is never mentioned.

Even the quote from the official LA commission report about the incident is used in a deceptive manner. When the narrator cited the commission’s mention of “racism and bias within the Los Angeles Police Department,” he failed mention that it was based on a survey that found just one fourth of officers in the department thought racism or bias existed at all in the department. In other words, more than 75 percent of officers did not believe racism existed.

But this was never about racism. The communist movement in the United States — backed for generations by the mass-murdering regime enslaving the Soviet Union — has been waging war on American police for almost a century now. In fact, in an official 1961 report headlined “Communist Plot Against the Free World Police,” the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate outlined the nature of the threat.

Among other concerns, it was revealed that communist agents across the West were working to undermine local police so that law-enforcement could be nationalized and federalized. Communists directed by Soviet intelligence had a special focus on the United States. The Judiciary Committee also detailed some of the methods, including formation of mobs to attack police and then demonizing the officers.

Considering the history of the ACLU, its latest salvo in its war on America’s police should come as no surprise. Among the charter members of the ACLU at its founding were numerous senior Communist Party officials including Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Louis Budenz, and even eventual Communist Party USA General-Secretary William Z. Foster.

ACLU Executive Director Roger Baldwin, who led the group from 1920 to 1950 and visited the USSR twice, was proud of his communist leanings. “I am for socialism,” he famously wrote. “I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal…. I don’t regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal.”

American officials have known this for decades. In 1948, the California Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities released a report on it. “The ACLU may be definitely classified as a Communist front or transmission belt organization,” the committee said on page 107 of its 1948 report. “At least 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of Communists who come in conflict with the law.”

Stripping American communities of their police forces would be a recipe for chaos, especially in minority communities. But the American people, including black Americans, have made it abundantly clear that they are vehemently opposed to such an idiotic plan.

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

-and, please-

I don’t doubt for a moment that we still have race issues to address in America. And I don’t believe that, to date, we have fully overcome the legacy of hundreds of years of slavery and segregation in our history. At the same time, I do not accept former President Obama’s claim that the 2016 election of Donald Trump was, in part, a reaction to having a Black man in the White House.

In a widely reported excerpt from his forthcoming book Promised Land, Obama claims that “millions of Americans” were “spooked by a Black man in the White House.”

To quote him more fully, he argued that Trump “promised an elixir for the racial anxiety” of “millions of Americans spooked by a black man in the White House.”

These same Americans, we are told, were prey to “the dark spirits that had long been lurking on the edges of the modern Republican Party – xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, paranoid conspiracy theories, an antipathy toward black and brown folks.”

Yes, he writes, “It was as if my very presence in the White House had triggered a deep-seated panic, a sense that the natural order had been disrupted. Which is exactly what Donald Trump understood when he started peddling assertions that I had not been born in the United States and was thus an illegitimate president.”

How should we respond to this?

There are certainly White racists in America, and they must have hated having the Obamas in the White House. (It may surprise you to know that I have never met such a person face to face, heard from them on my radio show, or, to my memory, interacted with them on social media. I’m sure they exist. I just don’t know any of them).

And, while I do not believe Trump is a racist, he surely knows how to push certain buttons to get people from different backgrounds in his camp.

But the fact of the matter is that there were no anti-Black, White supremacist, race riots when Obama was elected, nor were there any protesting his presidency during his eight years in office.

Not only so, but no one was boarding up stores in anticipation of his victory, which would surely have been the case had “millions of Americans” been “spooked” by his election and had his victory “triggered a deep sense of panic.”

Where, pray tell, was that panic? What evidence does the former president provide?

The reality is that in 2008, Obama received 43 percent of the White vote (compared with 55 percent for McCain), which hardly speaks of a racist nation in panic. In fact, going back to 1980, this tied for the highest percentage of White votes for a Democratic candidate.

Bill Clinton also received 43 percent of the White vote in 1996. Other than that, the percentage of White Democratic votes from 1980 to 2008 was: 1980, 36 percent; 1984, 35 percent; 1988, 40 percent; 1992, 39 percent; 2000, 42 percent; 2004, 41 percent.

And in 2012, despite fears that Obama would see a significant drop in White votership, the percentage only dropped from 43 percent to 39 percent.

The Washington Post even carried a November 8, 2012 headline reading, “President Obama and the white vote? No problem.” As the article noted, Obama “won a clear popular vote victory — with a majority of his total vote nationwide coming from white voters.”

Where was the deep sense of panic? Where was the extreme, racist reaction? Where were the many millions who were spooked by a Black man in the White House?

The reality in 2012, as in 2008, is that the majority of Obama’s total vote count came from White voters. That is a simple demographic fact.

But Obama’s claims are nothing new. He was, sadly, a divisive leader, specifically when it came to race.

This very eloquent, charismatic, and gifted leader who could have helped unite our nation only divided us further, promoting identity politics and playing the race card. President Trump simply deepened that divide and poured salt into the wounds (while at the same time increasing the racial and ethnic diversity of his base). That, to me, was a terrible missed opportunity from our first Black president.

Many Americans felt as I did, unable to vote for Obama because of policy but excited to have a Black leader in the White House.

Personally, I was hoping that that this was yet another step towards racial healing, feeling it could also bring great hope to Black Americans. Anything is possible. Dream your dreams. You could be president one day, too.

That’s how my trainer at the gym expressed things. A married Black man with a young son, he told me that he never expected to see a Black president in his lifetime. Now, his own son could see that anything was possible here in America.

Interestingly, earlier in the year, while taking a short flight on my way to California, I sat next to a Black bishop, leading to some wonderful interaction.

I asked him, “In your opinion, what was the aftermath of the Obama presidency?”

He replied, “White Americans said, ‘Never again!’”

I was shocked to hear that perspective from this very learned, spiritually sensitive brother, seeing that I had never in my life heard such a sentiment from a White colleague or friend.

Perhaps such sentiments do exist, and to the extent that they do, they should be exposed and denounced, loudly, clearly, and categorically.

But that is not why more than 70 million Americans voted to elect (or, reelect) Donald Trump. And that’s why Lawrence Jones, himself Black, was right to say, “I feel like President Obama has started to demonize some of the very people that voted for him.”

He added, “I don’t like the demonization … to paint 70 million people as just these cold-blooded racists. I don’t think that’s true.”

Indeed, “When you take the highest office in the land, you’re going to receive criticism and you can’t just say that it is deeply rooted in race.”

Well said, Mr. Jones.

Every survey I have done indicates that a solid, conservative Black candidate would garner far more votes from White conservatives than would a White leftist. No doubt about it. Ideology, not race, is the driving issue when it comes to our vote.

Unfortunately, just when former President Obama could have brought words of healing to a deeply divided, hurting nation, he has pushed identity politics again and insulted millions of well-intentioned Americans.

It looks like healing will not come from either Obama or Trump (or Biden). We’ll have to make it happen on our own (with God’s help).

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

In June 2020, Kennedy Mitchum, a 22-year-old graduate of Drake University, needed a way to call non-racists “racists,” so she emailed Merriam-Webster Dictionary to tell them to change the definition of “racism” in such a way as to enable people to use the Merriam-Webster Dictionary to call non-racists “racists.”

Heretofore, Merriam-Webster had defined “racism” as “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” Mitchum griped that because of that definition, whites who don’t believe in racial superiority, who harbor no ill-will toward people with a different skin-color, and who don’t mistreat people with a skin color different from their own would deny they were racists. And she needed a way to prove that non-racist whites are, indeed, racists.

In a radio interview, Mitchum said, “It’s not just disliking someone because of the color of their skin. There are systems in place in health care, in the justice system that are automatically formed to put people of color at the bottom and keep them at the bottom of the barrel.” While providing no evidence, Mitchum asserts that the very reason health care systems and the justice system were formed was to put and keep people of color at the bottom of the barrel.

In her dialogue with Merriam-Webster, Mitchum argues that “Racism is not only prejudice against a certain race due to the color of a person’s skin, as it states in your dictionary. It is both prejudice combined with social and institutional power. It is a system of advantage based on skin color.”

This article of faith is necessary to exempt racists of color from their culpability in propagating actual racism. If racism requires power, and persons of color supposedly have none, then no matter how explicit and ugly their racism is, it’s not—by this Newspeakian redefinition— racism.

This convoluted view of racism is a central tenet of Critical Race Theory (CRT).

Mitchum also said, “the current definition also fails to acknowledge microaggressions.” Once again, leftists manipulate language in order to advance an ideology.

By hook or by dictionary, persons of color will prove that colorless non-racists are racist. And if you deny that, you’re racist. Got it you achromatic, washed-out bigots?

Why didn’t Mitchum go for broke? Why didn’t she ask for this new dictionary entry:

“racist”: n. 1. Having little melanin; being “white.” 2. Being pale-skinned and, by that fact, personally responsible for 400 years of evil.

Critical Race Theory has spread from the academy–where surely Mitchum ingested the poison–into even historically theologically orthodox churches. Tim Keller—well-known and influential author, founder of The Gospel Coalition, and pastor of the Manhattan megachurch, Redeemer Christian Church—has embraced elements of the ugly racist philosophy of collective guilt. On June 3, 2016, Keller said this:

[M]y pastor friend said “studies have … pretty much proven that if you have white skin it’s worth a million dollars over a lifetime, over somebody who doesn’t have white skin.

And that’s because of historical forces that have come about. … if you have that asset of white skin, right now … then you actually have to say “I didn’t deserve this” and also to some degree, “I’m the product of…I’m standing on the shoulders of other people who got that through injustice.”

So, the Bible actually says “yes…you are involved in injustice,” and even if you didn’t actually do it, therefore you have a responsibility—not just to say “well, maybe if I get around to it, maybe we can do something about the poor people out there.” No- you’re part of the problem.

Keller’s strange interpretation of Scripture goes back further still. He expressed the same ideas in a troubling presentation delivered at a Desiring God event in 2012.  In his sermon “Racism and Corporate Evil: A White Guy’s Perspective,” Keller misused Joshua 7, Daniel 9, and Romans 5, overlooking the distinction between the Old Testament and New Testament covenants as well as the distinction between personal sin and the doctrine of original sin.

Jonathan Bradford summarizes and refutes Keller’s CRT-infused views:

Keller argues that when a person is part of a community or ‘system’, they are in part responsible for the actions of that system or community. The only exception to this doctrine seems to be if one is ‘resisting’ the sinful system. If someone is ‘resisting’ then they are not responsible for the sin.

If this doctrine is true, then Christians must always and constantly be resisting the system if they desire to stop being imputed with the sins of their community (because every community always has sin).

Keller didn’t explain how the following verses comport with his woke interpretation of Scripture:

 “Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live.  The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezekiel 18:19-20)

 But he did not put to death the children of the murderers, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the Lord commanded, “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. But each one shall die for his own sin.” (2 Kings 14:6)

What a tragedy that Keller should embrace any part of the anti-biblical ideology of corporate sin and guilt—an ideology rejected by Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl who said this in 1985:

[M]y deepest conviction is … that there is no collective guilt! Let alone—if I may so call it—a retroactive collective guilt, in which someone is held responsible for what their parents’ or even grandparents’ generation may once have done.

Guilt can only be personal guilt—guilt for what one has done oneself or even not done, neglected to do. 

In a recently published article titled “A Biblical Critique of Secular Justice and Critical Theory,” Keller makes a statement that seems to contradict his embrace of collective guilt:

To see whole races as more sinful and evil than other races leads to things like the Holocaust.

Keller’s earlier statements about whites being “involved in injustice” based on nothing more than their skin color seems to contradict this statement. Keller may be trying to distinguish between a Nazi belief in genetic superiority and his own belief in white culpability for injustice based on membership in a racial group in possession of social advantages due to past racism. If so, his distinction is muddled and unbiblical and, therefore, unhelpful.

In this article, Keller offers a far superior perspective on postmodern Critical Theory (CT), of which Critical Race Theory is a part, by examining some of its contradictions, most notably the idea of the social construction of “truth-claims”:

If all truth-claims and justice-agendas are socially constructed to maintain power, then why aren’t the claims and agendas of the adherents of this view subject to the same critique? Why are the postmodern justice advocates’ claims that “This is oppression” unquestionably, morally right, while all other moral claims are mere social constructs? And if everyone is blinded by class-consciousness and social location, why aren’t they? Intersectionality claims oppressed people see things clearly—but why would they if social forces make us wholly what we are and control how we understand reality? Are they less formed by social forces than others? And if all people with power—who “call the shots” socially, culturally, economically, and control public discourse—inevitably use it for domination, then if any revolutionaries were able to replace the oppressors at the top of the society, why would they not become people that should subsequently be rebelled against and replaced themselves? What would make them different? The Postmodern account of justice has no good answers for these questions. You cannot insist that all morality is culturally constructed and relative and then claim that your moral claims are not. This is not a flaw that only Christians can see, and this may therefore be a fatal flaw for the entire theory.

In contrast to CRT’s and Kennedy Mitchum’s redefinition of racism, here’s pastor and theologian John Piper’s view of racism:

Here’s my definition of racism: attributing to one race intrinsic superiority or valuing it above another and then treating others as undesirable or evil. … It is a history-long problem and a global problem, not just a little black and white problem or a little Asian problem or a little Rwanda problem or a little Jewish problem. It is a massive, global, history-long, devastating, bloody, murderous problem. For example, the Armenian Genocide in Turkey in 1915—a million slaughtered Armenians. Holocaust in Germany: six million. Who knows how many tens of million in the Soviet Gulags under Stalin? The massacres in Rwanda in 1994, the Japanese slaughter of six million Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos and Indo Chinese—a litany of history-long bloodletting all in the name of ethnicity or race. That is because humans are in rebellion against God.

That’s where that comes from—exalting ourselves over against our Maker and, of course, if over against our Maker, over against each other. That’s a given. Anybody that would have the audacity not to submit to the King of kings and Lord of lords would not have any problem putting you down. We find our pleasure and self-exaltation being made much of and if I have to use my ethnicity to do that, thank you very much, I will do it. That sin of racism … grows in the ground of pride and self-exaltation.

Those who do not use race or ethnicity as a source of pride or self-exaltation, those who do not attribute intrinsic superiority to one race above another, those who do not treat others as undesirable or evil based on their race or skin color are not racist. And the sins and concomitant guilt of their forefathers and foremothers should not be imputed to them—at least God doesn’t.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Racist.mp3

HELP! Our get-out-the-vote campaign is up and running. We are distributing the IFI Voter Guide to hundreds of churches, civic groups and tea party organizations. We need your  financial support to help us reach Illinois voters and promote Christian family values. Please donate today!

Written by Walter E. Williams

The Michigan State University administration pressured professor Stephen Hsu to resign from his position as vice president of research and innovation because he touted research that found police are not more likely to shoot black Americans. The study found: “The race of a police officer did not predict the race of the citizen shot. In other words, black officers were just as likely to shoot black citizens as white officers were.” For political reasons, the authors of the study sought its retraction.

The U.S. Department of Education warned UCLA that it may impose fines for improperly and abusively targeting white professor Lt. Col. W. Ajax Peris for disciplinary action over his use of the n-word while reading to his class Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.‘s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” that contained the expressions “when your first name becomes “n——r,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are). Referring to white civil rights activists King wrote, “They have languished in filthy, roach-infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as ‘dirty n——r-lovers.'”

Boston University is considering changing the name of its mascot Rhett because of his link to “Gone with the Wind.” Almost 4,000 Rutgers University students signed a petition to rename campus buildings Hardenbergh Hall, Frelinghuysen Hall and Milledoler Hall because these men were slave owners. University of Arkansas students petitioned to remove a statue of J. William Fulbright because he was a segregationist who opposed the Brown v. Board of Education that ruled against school segregation.

The suppression of free speech and ideas by the elite is nothing new. It has a long ugly history. Galileo Galilei was a 17th-century Italian astronomer, physicist and engineer, sometimes called “father of modern physics.” The Catholic Church and other scientists of his day believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Galileo offered evidence that the Earth traveled around the sun — heliocentrism. That made him “vehemently suspect of heresy” and was forced to recant and sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition and was later commuted to house arrest for the rest of his life.

Much of today’s totalitarianism, promotion of hate and not to mention outright stupidity, has its roots on college campuses. Sources that report on some of the more egregious forms of the abandonment of free inquiry, hate and stupidity at our colleges are: College Reform and College Fix.

Prof. William S. Penn, who was a Distinguished Faculty Award recipient at Michigan State University in 2003, and a two-time winner of the prestigious Stephen Crane Prize for Fiction, explained to his students, “This country still is full of closet racists.” He said: “Republicans are not a majority in this country anymore. They are a bunch of dead white people. Or dying white people.”

The public has recently been treated to the term — white privilege. Colleges have long held courses and seminars on “whiteness.” One college even has a course titled “Abolition of Whiteness.” According to some academic intellectuals, whites enjoy advantages that nonwhites do not. They earn higher income and reside in better housing, and their children go to better schools and achieve more. Based on that idea, Asian Americans have more white privilege than white people. And, on a personal note, my daughter has more white privilege than probably 95% of white Americans.

As George Orwell said, “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” If the stupid ideas of academic intellectuals remained on college campuses and did not infect the rest of society, they might be a source of entertainment — much like a circus.

My fellow-Americans, we are being sold a bill of goods. Race is not what is dividing us. Rather, we are being divided by competing ideologies. Let us put our focus where it belongs.

Listening to the news, you would think that racism is deeply entrenched in every neighborhood in our country. That racial hatred is the norm. That judging people by the color of their skin is what the average American does.

But I do not believe that for a second – and I say that while fully acknowledging the very real racial issues we continue to face.

A caller to my radio show on Monday said he was born in Hong Kong. Then he lived in Ghana, in West Africa. Then in Ireland. And now in America.

He said that America was by far the least racist place he lived. (The call starts here.)

One week earlier, I had interviewed Prof. Craig Keener, a dear friend and one of the world’s foremost New Testament scholars.

He is white but was ordained into the ministry in a black church in America, and he is married to an African woman and they have a son. Craig has also co-authored two books on race relations, together with a black co-author.

He is acutely aware of racial issues and does not downplay them for a minute.

But he said that his wife, a highly educated woman who speaks fluent French, suffered real discrimination while living in France. She would arrive for a job interview, for which she was well qualified. But when they met her, they would say, “We don’t hire blacks.”

She never experienced that here in America.

Not only so, but Craig told me that the worst racism she ever faced was within her home country in Africa, where the racism had nothing to do with skin color, since everyone was black. It had to do with where you came from or what strata of society you lived in.

Racism no knows no bounds.

That being said, I do not believe racism is the norm in America.

On June 11, I polled my Twitter followers, asking, “Would you be completely at home having a neighbor of a different race?”

Now remember, even though my Twitter followers (a little over 41,000, so not particularly large) are roughly equivalent to the national averages when it comes to demographics, they are quite conservative. The strong majority are probably Trump supporters as well.

How did they respond to the poll?

Just under 97 percent said, “Absolutely.” (The exact number was 96.8 percent.) Yes, almost 97 percent said they would absolutely “be completely at home having a neighbor of a different race.”

Only 2 percent answered with, “Depends on which race.” Only 1.2 percent said, “Absolutely not.”

And remember: this is an anonymous poll, so people can vote freely.

As for the results, they didn’t surprise me in the least, especially in Christian circles. (The vast majority of my social media followers identify as Christian.)

Many of our churches are multi-racial, especially if they are in multi-racial locations. And when they are not, joining together for multi-racial gatherings is often considered a highlight. And in cities across America, pastors work together in multi-racial coalitions.

And just ask yourself about your own circle of friends or co-workers. How common is racism in your midst?

Getting back to the poll, I was inspired to do the “neighbor” poll by a 2013 article by Max Fisher in the Washington Post. It was titled, “A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries.”

Fisher reported the results of a major study by two Swedish economists who felt the number one way to determine racial attitudes was this: “The survey asked respondents in more than 80 different countries to identify kinds of people they would not want as neighbors.”

What were their findings?

“Anglo and Latin countries most tolerant. People in the survey were most likely to embrace a racially diverse neighbor in the United Kingdom and its Anglo former colonies (the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and in Latin America.”

Conversely, “India and Jordan by far the least tolerant. In only two of 81 surveyed countries, more than 40 percent of respondents said they would not want a neighbor of a different race. This included 43.5 percent of Indians and 51.4 percent of Jordanian.”

So, America is one of the least racist countries on the planet?

To repeat. This does not mean that we do not have problems to address. And, as I have stated before, to the chagrin of some of my conservative friends, I have no problem asking if there is still systemic racism in America. (If not systemic racism, then system inequity.)

My point in this article is to stress that our biggest issues in America are not race-based. They are ideologically based. And right now, those pushing a radical leftist agenda are the most divisive among us, by far.

Of course, if the radical right (which includes the “alt-right”) had a bigger platform today, they would be just as divisive. But they do not. They have been largely marginalized, and for that I am glad.

Instead, it is the radical left (which includes the BLM movement and its Marxist-fueled agenda) which has become dominant, championed by a complicit (or foolishly naïve) media. They are the ones dividing us.

On a personal level, I will continue to listen to people of color as they their share perspectives with me (like a caller on Monday who told me he started picking cotton at the age of 5 and that I had no idea what his life experience was like; he is correct). And I will continue to ask God to show me my blind spots.

But I will not allow cultural radicals to paint a false picture of our nation.

We are far from perfect. But we are hardly a country that is deeply divided by race.

Let us join together then and stand as one for what is right.

I truly believe that is what the great majority of Americans want to do.

Do you agree?

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

The ideology of Black Lives Matter (BLM) and other “social justice” organizations teaches that all whites are racist oppressors, thereby justifying verbal attacks on people who are deemed inveterate racists and justifying riots to destroy everything that has emerged from an allegedly irremediable racist system. In promoting an explicitly racist ideology, BLM and other “social justice” organizations institutionalize racism, the fruits of which we are still suffering.

read more

If you have logged on to Netflix, Amazon, and other places recently, you have probably seen some of corporate America’s virtue signaling via banners in support of Black Lives Matter. By itself, it is a powerful slogan which no one can disagree with, even if you’d prefer to say all lives matter. However, there’s more to this than just a slogan.

The organization Black Lives Matter has some very specific goals and views that many casual observers may not know: it was founded to dramatically change America, and its leaders have not been shy about where they stand. Here are just a few of their policy positions with a couple of my comments in parentheses.

• Black Lives Matter supports abortion. It states: “We deserve and thus we demand reproductive justice that gives us autonomy over our bodies and our identities while ensuring that our children and families are supported, safe, and able to thrive.” (Aborted babies don’t thrive nor are they safe. Black babies are disproportionately terminated by the abortion industry which has racist roots stemming from Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.)

• Black Lives Matter supports the radical LGBT agenda. It states: “We foster a queer-affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking.” (Two of the three founders of BLM describe themselves as “queer,” a rather radical term for a homosexual activist.)

• Black Lives Matter opposes the traditional nuclear family which is a vital sociological part of overcoming crime and poverty. It states: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.” (Villages without fathers are poor [literally] substitutes for communities with intact families.)

• Black Lives Matter supports reparations. It states: “Reparations for full and free access for all Black people (including undocumented and currently and formerly incarcerated people) to lifetime education…retroactive forgiveness of student loans, and support for lifetime learning programs.”

• Black Lives Matter supports the abolishment of police. It states: “We believe that prisons, police and all other institutions that inflict violence on Black people must be abolished…”

• Black Lives Matter claims to oppose racism, but it is an organization with anti-Semitic leanings. In 2016 BLM adopted derogatory policy statements about Israel. It described the nation of Israel as an “apartheid state” committing “genocide” and supports the boycott, divest and sanction (BDS) movement against Israel. BLM opposes any support of Israel by the United States government.

• Black Lives Matter’s activism is helping the presidential campaign of Joe Biden. If one goes to the BLM website and chooses to donate, he is redirected to a site hosted by ActBlue and prompted with the message: “We appreciate your support of the movement and our ongoing fight to end state-sanctioned violence, liberate Black people, and end white supremacy forever.” Joe Biden is the top beneficiary of ActBlue’s fundraising efforts.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 the trend of posting a black screen was seen across social media.

What is the Blackout screen?

According to Insider, Blackout Tuesday (with the use of the Blackout screen as a symbol) is “an initiative to go silent on social media, reflect on recent events, and stand in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement.”

What is the Black Lives Matter movement?

According to blacklivesmatter.com, “Black Lives Matter began as a call to action in response to state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism. Our intention from the very beginning was to connect Black people from all over the world who have a shared desire for justice to act together in their communities. The impetus for that commitment was, and still is, the rampant and deliberate violence inflicted on us by the state.”

What is systematic racism?

According to Wikipedia,

“Institutional racism (systematic racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions. It is reflected in disparities regarding wealth, income, criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other factors.”

BLM pushes the narrative that police departments are inherently racist, but facts suggest otherwise.

What is the truth about police shootings?

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), blacks are the victims of homicide 8x more than Hispanics and whites combined. These homicides, however, are not by police officers but by blacks.

According to census.gov, the black community makes up 13% of the population. Black men make up 6% of the population, are responsible for 42% of the crime, and account for 44% of all homicides in America according to 2018 statistics.

Michigan State University and University of Maryland College Park created a database of 917 officers involved in fatal shootings in 2015. The study found that in more than 650 police departments, 55% of the assailants who were killed were white, only 27% were black, and 19% were Hispanic.

According to statista.com, in 2017, 457 white people were killed by police and 223 blacks were killed. In 2018, 399 whites were killed, and 209 blacks were killed. In 2019, 370 whites were killed, and 235 blacks were killed.

These statistics and many others show that it is far more likely for a white person to be shot and killed by a police officer than for a black person to be shot and killed by a police officer.

The narrative pushing systemic racism in police departments is factually incorrect. The propagation of this lie by the leftwing media continues to erode race relations in this country.

What does BLM ignore?

If BLM really cared about black lives, they would promote personal responsibility in their own communities and teach their children respect for authority, self-discipline, and responsibility for their own actions.

If BLM really cared about black lives, they would talk about the 20 million black babies that have been murdered in abortion clinics since 1973. Every year 300,000 black babies are aborted. According to the Wall Street Journal,

Nationally, black women terminate pregnancies at far higher rates than other women. … Racism, poverty, and lack of access to health care are the typical explanations for these disparities. But black women have much higher abortion rates even after you control for income. … The more plausible explanation may have to do with marriage. Unmarried women are more likely to experience an unintended pregnancy, and black women are less likely… to marry.

BLM should be promoting traditional marriage with fathers for children. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2015, 77.3% of all black births were illegitimate.

If BLM cared about their communities, they would not promote their destruction in riots.

BLM would also be talking about the black police officers that have been killed in the riots, like as David Dorn and Dave Patrick Underwood. BLM isn’t talking about these black lives because these lives don’t support the narrative they are pushing.

What BLM really cares about is dividing us. If we are divided, we are weak. If we are divided, we are easy to control, and the left wants complete control of our lives. The left along with BLM want God, law, and order out of America.

What does BLM demand?

BLM and other organizations participating in the riots are demanding that people bow down and ask for forgiveness for the racism they “inherently” have because they have a different skin color. But did not God make our skin color? Did God make a mistake when He made Caucasians, African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, and every other ethnic group? Aren’t all ethnic groups equal in God’s sight and therefore a good thing?

• Galatians 3:28 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”.

• Romans 2:11 says, “For God shows no partiality…”

• Colossians 3:11 says, “Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.”

If according to Scripture, no skin color is superior to another because God shows no partiality, why should we apologize for the way God created us? God makes no mistakes. God says in Psalm 139 that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made.”

Scripture teaches whom humans should bow down before:

• Psalm 95:6 says, “Oh come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the Lord, our Maker!”

• Philippians 2:10-11 says, “So that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

So, what is the correct Christian response to the BLM movement?

As Christ followers, we kneel only before the throne of God. Before no one and no movement do we bow our knees in reverence and submission.

Believers, stop promoting the voices of those whose platform, ideals, and solutions are completely antithetical to God’s Word. Stop obsessing about how we look to the world. The world will hate us because they hate God (John 15:18). The world is diametrically opposed to God and His laws.

Why are we trying to make people accept us? Could it be that many Christians value the opinions of the world above God’s? (Prov 29:25)

What did your Blackout screen really say?

Your Blackout screen said that being white or something other than black—that this lack of melanin in your skin—is shameful and something to apologize for.

Your Blackout screen said that you are willing to bow before someone other than God.

Your Blackout screen said that America is racist, police are racist, and police are looking for opportunities to kill black people.

Your Blackout screen said that we are not equal. Our skin color separates us. Is this the message of the gospel? No, it is not. God calls for unity, not division. (Psalm 133:1)

The BLM movement is opposed to everything the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ stands for, and no believer should stand—or, rather, kneel—in support of this movement. “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14) 

Believers, stop embracing this movement. Reject the false narrative deceptively advanced in the name of compassion. Stop believing the lie.

The reason all forms of racism must be opposed is that God opposes racism. The same bigotry that has its roots in the BLM movement is the same bigotry that existed in Nazi Germany during the 1930’s and the American South in the 1800’s.

At the center of all racism is sin. Racism must be denounced as exactly what it is—a sin that falls short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). For those of us in Christ, we can and must declare the gospel as the only means to heal our broken and divided land. We are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

Alyssa Josephs is a 17 year-old conservative Christian who is passionate about following Christ and being a gospel witness to her peers. She lives with her family in Chicago.

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.