I had awarded Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey the award for Most Cringeworthy Performative Act/photo op of 2020 for his fake body-wracking sobbing while kneeling at George Floyd’s casket. Frey’s performative act/photo op topped even that of the genuflecting congressional thespians adorned in culturally appropriated African kente-clothe scarves led by prayer warrior Nancy Pelosi.

You might want to take some Zofran 30 minutes before watching this:

But now I must rescind the award and give it to the dozen apparently racist celebrities publicly confessing and self-flagellating before the Black Lives Matter Crusaders for their collective, systemic white transgressions.

In melodramatically somber tones, lesbian Sarah Paulson, Aaron Paul, bisexual Kesha (formerly Ke$ha), Bethany Joy Lenz, Kristen Bell, Justin Theroux,  Debra Messing, Mark Duplass, Bryce Dallas Howard (Ron Howard’s daughter), Julianne Moore, Piper Perabo, Stanley Tucci, Ilana Glazer, and gymnast Aly Raisman are taking responsibility for “every unchecked moment, for every time it was easier to ignore than to call it out for what it was, for every not-so-funny joke, every unfair stereotype, every blatant injustice, no matter how big or small, every time” they “remained silent,” and “every time” they “explained away police brutality, or turned a blind eye.”

Eleven of the twelve sanctimonious celebrities work in an industry rife with sexism and exploitation of women and now we learn they are also, apparently, guilty of racism. While profiting from one of the most hypocritical and destructive industries in the country that creates and promotes soft-core porn and glorifies violence, all these self-indulgent, privileged celebrities are now confessing to being racists.

Are they really responsible for every not-so-funny joke, unfair stereotype, and blatant injustice in the world? Did all twelve of them really explain away police brutality? If that’s true, they have a lot to atone for.

The moralizers/offenders identify what they see from their snazzy digs:

Black people are being slaughtered in the streets, killed in their own homes. Going for a job should not be a death sentence. Sleeping in your own home should not be a death sentence. Playing video games with your nephew should not be a death sentence. Shopping in a store should not be a death sentence. Business as usual should not be life-threatening.

No disagreement. Is there anyone in America who believes black people should be slaughtered in the streets, killed in their own homes, killed while playing video games with their relatives, or killed while shopping?

But is there a pervasive problem with black people being slaughtered in the streets, killed in their own homes, or murdered while shopping? Well, yes, there is, but the slaughtering of blacks—including innocent children sitting on their porches, sleeping in their beds, and walking home from school—is being committed primarily by young black men raised without fathers.

Here are some data from scholar Heather MacDonald that the celebrity social justice warriors may want to consider:

However sickening the video of Floyd’s arrest, it isn’t representative of the 375 million annual contacts that police officers have with civilians. A solid body of evidence finds no structural bias in the criminal-justice system with regard to arrests, prosecution or sentencing. Crime and suspect behavior, not race, determine most police actions.

In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population.

The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.

On Memorial Day weekend in Chicago alone, 10 African-Americans were killed in drive-by shootings. Such routine violence has continued—a 72-year-old Chicago man shot in the face on May 29 by a gunman who fired about a dozen shots into a residence; two 19-year-old women on the South Side shot to death as they sat in a parked car a few hours earlier; a 16-year-old boy fatally stabbed with his own knife that same day. This past weekend, 80 Chicagoans were shot in drive-by shootings, 21 fatally, the victims overwhelmingly black. Police shootings are not the reason that blacks die of homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined; criminal violence is. …

A 2015 Justice Department analysis of the Philadelphia Police Department found that white police officers were less likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot unarmed black suspects. Research by Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer Jr. also found no evidence of racial discrimination in shootings. Any evidence to the contrary fails to take into account crime rates and civilian behavior before and during interactions with police.

Of course, everyone knows the celebrity pontificators aren’t really confessing and don’t really feel guilty. They’re doing what socially insular, intellectually myopic, presumptuous, and self-righteous celebrities do best: scold the deplorables—oh, and act.

What other icky cultural manifestations of kowtowing to the destructive Marxist ideologies of BLM and Antifa fascists are emerging? Here are a few:

• As of this writing, Seattle, a sanctuary city with a plague of homelessness, is now a lawless Antifa/BLM enclave, which has been named the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” (CHAZ). At the command of political leaders, Seattle police surrendered the entire 6-block area to anarchists, including their own police precinct, which has been renamed “Seattle People’s Department East Precinct.” Leftists promptly erected borders around their zone and appointed a defacto armed police department. Lawlessness and chaos–which ultimately result in tyranny–are the logical ends of “progressivism.” Next up, the Purge. If current policemen all across this once-great nation walked off the job and BLM members took over “protecting” our rights and communities, would we have less racism, fewer bad “cops,” and communities better suited for human flourishing? I wonder if any businesses will open stores or corporate headquarters in Seattle? I wonder if any families will move there? Other than anarchists and zombies, who will want to move there?

• There are a number of candidates vying for the title of “Progressive” Hypocrite of the Pandemic Year. Top of the list is Michigan governor Christine Whitmer, or as Andrew Klavan calls her, “Obersturmfuhrer Whitmer, ” who prohibited Michiganders from buying seeds or paint when they were shopping at Home Depot, who told Michiganders not to travel north on Memorial Day weekend as her husband traveled north on Memorial Day weekend to get their essential boat on the water early, and who banned lawn care workers from mowing lawns—alone. Well, here she is marching shoulder-to-shoulder with BLM. Sheltering in place is good for thee but not for she when there’s a campaign for the vice presidency that needs a photo op. #PerformativeAct
  Does anyone think that if there had been hundreds of thousands of conservatives marching peacefully in streets for the past two weeks to protest the crushing quarantine—with zero rioting, arson, looting, and brick-throwing—that leftist quarantine zealots would have been silent? Or would there have been mass rage, rending of clothes, and sanctimonious scoldings over the iniquitous disregard for human life demonstrated by demonstrators?

• The mob is coming for your jobs. John Daniel Davidson writing for The Federalist warns that your position on BLM has consequences:

There will be no opting out of the Black Lives Matter movement. You’re either for BLM or against it—and if you’re against it, you’re a racist. You will either support BLM publicly and enthusiastically, or you will be harassed, shunned, and shamed out of mainstream America. If you dare to speak a word against BLM, you will be targeted, mobbed, and probably fired.

• Leftists now want to burn books (and movies and historical monuments), but since they can’t actually say that, they had to figure out a way to conceal that they want to burn books. What to do, what to do? 💡Brainstorm!Just rename book-burning. Call it “decolonizing your bookshelf.” Oh, and when you’re done with all that decolonizing, call the Firemen:

Coloured people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it. Someone’s written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. (Captain Beatty, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury).

We just put our American flag up at our house. I think it’s going to stay up for a while. I am deeply thankful to live in America where “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and where our forefathers wrote, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

This is a remarkable country built on principles that enable it to become “a more perfect Union” as long as we remember the Creator who endowed us with Rights. Without a Creator, there exist no unalienable Rights. Without a Creator, there exist no transcendent truths, no moral absolutes. Un-created human lives don’t matter. Un-created humans create and inhabit a world of highly intelligent dogs eating dogs.

I hope Christians who, in the face of slander, hostility, and threats, offer feeble, vapid defenses of their silence on issues that both culture and Scripture address realize that 1. We the people are the government, 2. Children are watching as parents model cowardice and rationalization, and 3. Silent capitulators are feeding the behemoth that will devour their children’s and grandchildren’s hearts, minds, liberty, and maybe their bodies.

But by all means continue. Take up your crosses daily, and hide them in the basement.

Listen to this article read by Laurie: 

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/nauseating-performative-acts-by-celebrity-racists.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. 

I am really torn about what to say about the upheaval going on in our nation. I have spent a lot of time reading, researching, and listening to various sermons, presentations, and articles on things like the social justice movement, intersectionality, racism, cultural Marxism and virtue signaling in our culture and in our churches…

I recently had a “discussion” with someone that almost instantly turned into my having to prove I am not racist . . .  as defined, of course, by his perceptions, not my heart, or my statements, or my actions.

I love America and I love the study of U.S. history. I thank the Lord that in His sovereignty he blessed me by ordaining my birth here in 1967. I almost never think of myself as “white.” I do often think of myself as American. I believe that I have American privilege. I am so thankful for it. I do not buy into “white privilege.” I cannot think of a better place for anyone of any ethnic background to live that offers more freedom, more equality, and more opportunity than the U.S.

I do not believe that in 2020 America is racist. More than any other country, America has sacrificed to correct the wrongs of our history. I am worried that too many people have been led to believe that America has not changed since 1865 or 1920. It has . . . but for many, the sins of the past can never be overcome or repented of enough. I do not believe this is Biblical, let alone secularly true.

I do believe that, even today, there are racist Americans, and that some people treat others poorly. (There are also racist police officers.) But I do not believe they are racist because they are Americans or even because they may be white. There are some racists among us, of all ethnicities, and all professions, because we are all humans with a sinful nature that utopian ideas cannot change. For this same reason, there are also liars, adulterers, thieves, rapists, and child abusers among us too. We have, and need, laws to address and deter these human sins.

Thankfully, we have passed a great deal of laws that have been successful as both a teacher and a protector, so that all Americans have opportunities in spite of our differences. We also have vital institutions like churches and schools to help us live above our base human tendencies.

There are people out there talking about “systematic racism” some saying that, as one professor declared on national TV, “America is a social experiment that has failed.”  If this is true, we are doomed. But it is not true. Venezuela and the USSR were social experiments that failed. America has been a very, though not perfectly, successful experiment in liberty in so many ways.

There are definitely economic inequalities in the U.S. for a variety of reasons. Yet, it should also be remembered that 71 percent of the world’s population has less than $10,000 in total assets. Americans are a prosperous lot, and globally, most of us would be considered wealthy and privileged. The typical American has as much wealth sitting in their driveway, as much of the world currently has in their entire life.

I say that only to say a self-hating society cannot last.

The loss of life of at least 17 people, mostly minorities, in these riots is horrific. To me, after this is the destruction of businesses and properties in the cities where serious social problems remain. A part of this destruction that deeply worries me involves an historic ignorance I see mostly among young white anarchists who have infiltrated and hijacked a legitimate concern over the death of George Floyd and police policies.

Last week, I mentioned the senseless painting of “Black Lives Matter” on the Indianapolis Soldiers and Sailors monument, which was built in large part to remember the lives and service given by Indiana’s Union soldiers in the Civil War. I think that outrage has now been topped in Boston.

Rioters vandalized the Shaw Memorial statue dedicated to the 54^th Massachusetts Voluntary Infantry regiment. This was the all black Union regiment depicted in the Oscar winning movie Glory, starring Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman. Authorities believe that rioters vandalized the memorial on Sunday, May 31^st – the 123rd anniversary of its dedication!   

This kind of stupidity, and total dismissal of the good things in American history that occurred to achieve equality, is baffling and scary. Too many of our nation’s young have been indoctrinated to believe everything bad about our nation with no historic or global perspective of the positive uniqueness of America. These senseless anarchists might as well vandalize the Selma, Alabama, Pettus Bridge too.

While I do not want to dismiss legitimate conversations, let me pass along a couple of facts that point to my title of this item.

• Today, 28 percent of all children adopted from foster care in the United States are interracial adoptions.  Another 21 percent of privately initiated adoptions in the U.S. are interracial adoptions.

• For children who are not Caucasian, 73 percent of their adoptions are to Caucasian parents.

• The percentage of international U.S. adoptions that are interracial is 84 percent.

• Fifty years ago, only 3 percent of marriages in the U.S. were interracial, but by 2015, 17 percent of newlyweds in the U.S. had a spouse from a different racial background. (For comparison, interracial marriages in Japan today are still just 3 percent. In 1978, China did not have one single interracial marriage registered among its 950 million people, which was a population three times the size of America today.)

• The percentage of interracial marriages involving a black spouse has tripled since 1980.

I am not wanting to overlook any concerns, but these are not the kind of major life decisions you would see of a people living under a “systematically racist” government.

America needs prayer, optimism, and unity right now; not lawlessness, self-loathing ignorance, and destruction.

This article was originally published at AFA of Indiana.

There are a lot of really bad ideas swirling around our culture right now.  (That headline is one of them.)

Among many bad ideas, I am concerned about the things being embraced by various people and groups in a manner that has been termed “virtue signaling.” If you have not heard of this, think of Nike’s new commercials decrying racism, as if the whole world was eagerly waiting to know what a shoe company thinks. After all, we all know that the shoes we wear impact how we speak and behave towards each other. We must all think good things about Nike now. Their shoes care.

This is akin to white guilt.  It is something I also do not understand. I have enough of my own faults to deal with in the here and now. I do not need to take on the sins of people I never knew, people I had no impact upon, and people who did things 150 years ago that I wouldn’t ever do. I can declare such things as evil, but I feel no need to wring my hands and apologize for the wrongs of the ancient dead.

The problem of humanity is sin, and it is universal. Racism is a sin. It is not a sin unique to one’s color or to this point in history, and it is certainly not unique to America. (For starters, we did a lot wrong, but we are also one of the only nations to ever violently spill our own blood to end slavery.)  Yet, this issue has taken on almost a cultic status in some circles, including churches, as the be all and end all defining issue.

So, with the understanding that racism is wrong, how do we address it without embracing wrong ideas or ideologies?

To perhaps jump start your thinking on this . . .  I would encourage you and your family to make a point of watching the incredible thinker and speaker, Voddie Baucham, in this important talk titled, “Ethnic Gnosticism.” I believe you will find this educational and something helpful for discussion of this within your family.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

Just when you thought civilized first-world countries had deposited mythology and science-denying irrationality in the dustbin of history, the “trans” cult emerged seeking to force science-loving Americans to embrace the solipsistic, “trans”-centric worldview in which biological sex has neither reality nor meaning. Worse, you have ostensibly non-mentally ill school leaders capitulating to the “trans” cult’s absurd and offensive demands—people like Township High School District 211 superintendent Dr. Daniel Cates. Cates wants District 211—the largest high school district in Illinois with 12,000 students and five high schools—to sexually integrate locker rooms.

Cates wants to allow students who pretend to be the sex they aren’t to have unrestricted access to opposite-sex locker rooms. If Cates gets his druthers, whatever girls are permitted to do in girls’ locker rooms, boys who pretend to be girls will be permitted to do also. If girls are permitted to partially undress or wholly undress openly in girls’ locker rooms, then boys who pretend to be girls will be allowed to do so as well. Presumably, if girls are permitted to shower nude, so too will pretend-girls (aka boys) be allowed to shower nude.

Prior requirements that these boys change in private changing areas will be rescinded. In an email sent to parents on Thursday, Sept. 12, Cates referred to boys and girls in tortured, hilarious, politically correct language, calling them “adolescents with different anatomy.” I kid you not. He said that.

Cates is jim-dandy with girls and boys undressing together in locker rooms. How do I know Cates—who should be fired—is jim-dandy with co-ed locker rooms? I know because he said this in his pro-“trans” email:

[U]nderstanding and acceptance of transgender identity have advanced—societally and in our immediate communities—for the better. In our district and countless others, students, families and staff honor, respect and celebrate all manifestations of the human condition. (emphasis added)

Did an educated man really say that? Does he celebrate all manifestations of the human condition? How about racism, disease, intergenerational love, Genetic Sexual Attraction, polyamory, infantilism, sadomasochism, and zoophilia?

How does Cates demonstrate respect for those who believe “adolescents with different anatomy” should not undress or engage in bodily functions in the presence of peers of the opposite sex? How does he communicate his respect for those who believe the sexual integration of locker rooms undermines the belief that modesty derives from anatomical differentiation?

Cates has explicitly and unequivocally announced that the district has embraced a radical set of Leftist ideological assumptions created and advanced by the “trans” cult, without providing a persuasive reason why private space usage should correspond to subjective and often fluid “gender identity” as opposed to objective immutable biological sex. Nor has he shared his view on which locker rooms “gender fluid” students use.

Someone should ask Cates this question: Is it legitimate, valid, sound, reasonable, and good for girls not to want to share private spaces with opposite-sex persons? If it is, then what difference should it make to girls if opposite-sex persons wish they were girls? If it’s not legitimate, valid, sound, reasonable, or good, then why have any sex-segregated private spaces?

“Progressives” often ask snottily, “So, are we going to have genitalia police outside restrooms and locker rooms to confirm the presence of the right genitalia before people enter,” to which I reply, “Are we going to have ‘gender identity’ police outside restrooms and locker rooms to prove that the man seeking to enter really is ‘trans’ rather than a predator pretending to be ‘trans?’”

Since “gender identity” is subjective and internal, how do, for example, boys who “identify” as girls know the “gender identities” of the students in the boys’ and girls’ locker rooms? Let’s try this thought experiment: If most of the boys in the boys’ locker room at a particular school were to identify internally as girls and most of the girls were to identify internally as boys, which locker room should boys who impersonate girls use and why? It’s likely Leftists would answer that they should use whichever private spaces they want. And that, my friends, is where this is headed: The end game is the eradication of public recognition of biological sex everywhere for everyone, which means no private spaces anywhere for anyone.

Cates has either become a true believer in the “trans”-cultic mythology or he has sacrificed his principles and integrity on the altar to the almighty god of the greenback. Faced with a lawsuit against the district by a boy who pretends to be a girl, perhaps Cates—a graduate of the University of Notre Dame—would rather sacrifice science and the privacy and modesty of girls and boys than either district money or his job.

A man of real courage, principle, and integrity would never adopt such a foul policy. Rather, a man of courage, principle, and integrity would resign instead of adopting a policy that teaches girls and boys that biological sex has no meaning relative to feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy when undressing.

A man of courage, principle, and integrity would resign before adopting a policy that implicitly teaches that opposition to sharing locker rooms with opposite sex peers is ignorant, bigoted, and hateful.

A decent and wise leader would know that it’s wrong to put normal children in the awkward position of having to ask for special accommodations because they don’t want to change clothes or go to the bathroom in the presence of opposite-sex peers.

A decent and wise leader would know that such a pernicious policy will desensitize children and teens to engaging in private acts in the presence of opposite-sex peers, thereby undermining what is left of respect for the necessary virtue of modesty.

I’ve had “progressive” parents tell me that their daughters are fine undressing in the presence of “trans”-identifying male peers. These parents are happy about their daughters’ socially constructed, unnatural feelings. They—like Cates—view the belief that biological sex has no meaning relative to modesty and privacy as social and moral progress. Compassion—in their distorted worldview—demands we pretend maleness and femaleness have nothing to do with biological sex.

Ironically, while rejecting the importance of biological sex, which wholly determined by biochemistry, “progressives” believe that if biochemistry influences the desire to be the opposite sex, such desires are supremely important and morally legitimate to act upon. But do they apply that principle consistently? If biochemistry influences the desire to be an amputee (i.e., Body Integrity Identity Disorder), should we allow students to socially transition at school? Should schools allow anatomically whole students who identify as amputees to use handicap parking spaces, use a wheelchair in school, and be given extra passing-period time?

Since we know that biochemistry can be disordered and influence both thoughts and feelings, how do “trans” cultists know that when there is a mismatch or incongruity between their biological sex and their “gender identity” (i.e., their subjective, internal sense of their maleness, femaleness, both, or neither) the error resides in their bodies rather than their minds?

How many dads and moms will show up to publicly and courageously oppose this feckless policy proposal? How many staff or faculty charged with supervising locker rooms will oppose supervising students of the opposite sex who are undressing?

District 211 encompasses a large geographic area in which there are many churches. It will be interesting to see if any pastors—who are citizens that enjoy the privilege of self-government and whose congregations include children in this district—will turn out to oppose the sexual integration of locker rooms. (Don’t hold your breath.)

Conservatives, get your kids out of government schools now. No child should be trained up by foolish, cowardly adults who refer to boys and girls as “adolescents with different anatomy” and let them undress together. Trust me, no matter what empty blather “progressive” government school administrators and faculty members spew about respecting diversity and “all manifestations of the human condition,” they don’t like conservatives or want them around—especially conservative Christians, you know, the “haters.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Largest-Illinois-High-School-District-Opposes-Single-Sex-Locker-Rooms.mp3

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

-and, please-

The New York Times has embarked on an effort to rewrite the history of the United States as a nation built upon slavery.  Calling it the “1619 Project,” the opening article is a whopping 7,600-word effort to look at 18th Century history through a liberal 21^stcentury lens.  Joshua Lawson has written an excellent rebuttal to this effort in The Federalist.  Because much of the NYT’s ideology is already being inserted into the narrative of schools and universities, I wanted to pass along some portions of this important article for your consideration.

No, America Wasn’t Built On Slavery, But Faith That All Men Are Created Equal

The year 1619 was chosen for the Times’ “re-founding” to mark when the first slaves arrived in the English settlement of Jamestown.

Slavery was a heart-wrenching, obstacle during America’s birth, but by no objective analysis was it the central factor of the founding as the 1619 Project claims.

Slavery was and is an abomination. It is an evil part of America’s past—as well as that of nearly every nation on earth. The fact that slavery has a universal heritage does not absolve American slave owners, but it does provide a necessary historical context.

During the 17th century, slavery was, sadly, an accepted part of life throughout the world. By A.D. 1619, slavery had existed for more than 5000 years, dating back at least to Mesopotamia.

Written by Nikole Hannah-Jones, the 7,600-word flagship essay of the 1619 Project asserts that “our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written.”   Hannah-Jones claims, “white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst.” She provides no evidence or examples for this sweeping assertion.

Jefferson’s original final draft of the Declaration explicitly referred to black slaves not as property but as men.  Letters written to John Jay show Alexander Hamilton hoping the Revolutionary War could lead to the emancipation of blacks and appraising them equal to whites in their abilities. Additional examples are plentiful.

The Founders were painfully aware of the cognitive dissonance of forming a nation under the proclamation that all were created equal while maintaining slavery. They also had to face the political reality that the 13 colonies could not be united in a new nation if they immediately abolished slavery.

With no other way to obtain the necessary support for unity and ratification, the Founders spitefully tolerated slavery’s existence, while also placing it on a path to extinction. Once the nation secured independence, American statesman of the Founding Era slashed away at slavery as quickly as prudence and political reality would allow.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 prohibited slavery in the territory that would become the states of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. In 1794, Congress barred American ships from engaging in the slave trade. Additional legislation in 1780 banned Americans from employment or investment in the international slave trade. Finally, the U.S. Congress officially banned the importation of slaves beginning on January 1, 1808, the earliest date allowed under the deal made to ratify the Constitution.

Far from the bastion of racism, hate and pro-slavery sentiment that the 1619 Project portrays, much of the United States was ahead of the world in ending the horror of slavery.  Shortly after the signing of the Declaration, northern states took the lead. By 1804, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania had passed laws that immediately or gradually abolished slavery.

If the American Founding was grounded in slavery, and the Founders didn’t believe a word of the opening of the Declaration, how does one account for these actions?

According to Hannah-Jones, one of the “primary reasons” Americans declared independence was to preserve slavery, fearful of the “growing calls” to abolish the slave trade in London. However, a closer look shows the abolitionist movement didn’t have a truly organized presence in England until 1783 when the first petition was filed by Quakers. It wasn’t until 1787 that the influential Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded.

The 1619 Project is politically driven 2020 posturing dressed in the veneer of a historical “exposé.” By warping history, it hopes that dopamine hits of anger and injustice will prevent readers from engaging in objective analysis. Just in time to paint America as racist for the upcoming presidential election.

Leftists are banking that the outrage caused by the 1619 Project will provide them the political capital required to move to the next stage: a full reconfiguration of America into their image.

America does not need further tribal rhetoric tearing up what little societal cohesion remains. The nation certainly doesn’t benefit from Times writers conducting a growing chorus of anger and grievance.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

As you know, over the past few weeks we have seen a flurry of political activity in both Washington D.C. and Springfield. We expect this whirwind to continue through much of the spring.

With the election of Donald Trump as president, we have seen the agitated Left organize their base of  pro-abortion feminists and Leftist allies. They are highly motivated, looking for any opportunity to push back wherever and whenever they can.

The energy and momentum can be seen and felt in Springfield, where pro-life lawmakers are privately expressing their concerns about the lack of energy from the Illinois pro-life community, especially as it relates to trying to stop HB 40, the bill that will permit tax-funding for abortion under Medicaid and through state government insurance policies. In fact, one conservative lawmaker told us that he has received more calls in favor of this terrible bill than calls in opposition.

Passage of HB 40 would translate into tens of thousands of additional abortions in Illinois every year. As explained in an earlier article, this law would result in a disproportionate number of black and brown babies being killed.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your state representative, urging him/her to vote NO on HB 40. Also, please call your state representative next week to remind him/her that you do not want to have our tax-dollars used to abort innocent pre-born human beings. The Capitol switchboard  is (217) 782-2000.

Former State Representative Cal Skinner correctly points out that “in a year when the budget is in more trouble than at any time in the last fifty years, it is not the time to force state agencies to spend more money than last year.” The state of Illinois is not in a position to pay for new entitlement programs, let alone a new program that denies a pre-born person his or her civil right to live.

Bulletin Insert:  Ask your pastor to share this new bulletin insert with your congregation.  The body of Christ and people of faith must speak out now.

Call to Action Bulletin Insert

More ACTION:  Contact your like-minded family and neighbors and let them know that they should speak out against these radical proposals. Forward this article to them.  Also, post your opinions on Facebook and Twitter.

Please also pray that this bill will not get the support it needs to pass out of the Illinois House of Representatives.

Help us spread the word and activate other pro-lifers
by making a tax-deductible donation to IFI:

It seems that America is now locked in an endless loop of tension and violence. Many disaffected Americans are railing out at a government they see as being abusive and vindictive. Movements like “Black Lives Matter” have pitted some African-American (and other) citizens against police officers, in a vicious cycle of street demonstrations and police force.

In some ways, these tensions are not new, and can be traced all the way to the American Civil War, through segregation, the Civil Rights Movement up to today. Americans have always been deeply divided on issues of race, and equal rights.

Now, police are being targeted in random shootings by those who feel anger at what they view as a system of oppression and tyranny.

The question is, where will all of this end?

There are really two facets to this situation that must be explored if we hope to understand the roots of this predicament.

Racism and Prejudice

What very few people stop to consider is the roots of all so-called “racial” prejudice. As Bible-believing Christians, we believe that God “has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). From one man, and one woman, all of the more than seven billion people on planet earth have descended. That makes all of us related by blood. We are all part of the same race: The Human Race!

Racial prejudice comes mainly out of evolutionary teachings. If you study the roots of the Eugenics movement, you will see that it is based in the view that some people groups are more highly evolved than others. Very few people know the full title of Charles Darwin’s ground-breaking 1859 book on evolution. It is called, “On Origin of Species, by Way of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

Over 150 years of evolutionary teaching has saturated our culture, and has convinced many that we must struggle for the strongest races to survive. The solution to prejudice is found in the hope offered in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not only are we all equal in creation, and therefore equal in value, the Apostle Paul declared, “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.” (Gal. 3:28).

Anarchy vs. Totalitarianism

The other consideration in this situation is the age-old struggle between a desire for freedom from authority (on the one hand) and a demand for supreme authority by the State (on the other). This tension has always existed in every society. There is a rogue spirit in humankind that wants to be free from the bonds of restriction and law. But a lawless society, where everyone makes up their own rules (moral relativism), and where people’s passions run unchecked (hedonism), is not tenable. No civilization can bear up under the weight of an antinomian mindset (a believe that all law is bad).

When a culture begins to shake itself from moral law, it soon finds itself at the mercy of an ever-encroaching government that seeks to provide stability and regulation. The response to anarchy is always totalitarianism, and the response to tyranny is almost always rebellion, which leads to the cycle of more tyranny.

This situation is only remedied when people recognize that there is a universal moral law that exists outside of themselves, and to which they are all subservient. Once again, we find the solution to both extremes within the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. The entire “Sermon on the Mount,” puts external law in the only place where it ultimately works; inside the human heart.

Until the evil of the heart is addressed, we are simply trying to put a cultural bandage on a proverbial brain tumor. No amount of political posturing will make bad people want to do good. It is only when the human heart is changed by love that we will hope to see citizens desire to do good, rather than harm, to their neighbor. It is only when we forgive, rather than seeking another eye or tooth in retaliation for harm, that we can end the vicious cycle of bloodshed and violence.

Ultimately, Christianity provides a totally unique remedy in the history of ideas. Every other worldview teaches that we must solve our own problems through human effort and initiative. Christianity, in contrast, presents us as the heart of the problem, not the solution. The Bible insists that it is only through humility and repentance that we will find healing for our own souls, and then be able to extend that grace and healing to others.

May God grant us that grace of repentance and humility as we seek to walk through the turbulent days that lie ahead.

From National Review

A guest lecturer at the University of Wisconsin Whitewater, a public school, began class Tuesday with a racist, anti-Republican rant that went on for more than ten minutes.

The guest lecturer, Eyon Biddle, is the political and organizing director for Service Employees International Union Local 150. Biddle was speaking in the freshman general education course “Education 130: Individual and Society,” which allegedly “examines how people influence and are affected by their social worlds from the perspectives of anthropology, psychology, sociology, and women’s studies.”

In a video taken by a student in the class, obtained by Campus Reform, Biddle blames “white rage” for the failure of the Badger State’s 2010 recall attempt against Republican Governor Scott Walker. The union organizer goes on to say that American values are those of “division, racism, sexism, and classism.”

An excerpt of the video is below, and the full video can be found here.

“You’re looking at me like, ‘Dude you’re f*cking absurd, you’re crazy,’” Biddle said near the beginning of his lecture. “But every day you are living in a system that is telling you how to think, what to think, and when to do it.”

The SEIU official declared that blue-collar, white workers would not have voted for Scott Walker in 2010 — a vote that was “against their own interest” — if not for “white rage” and distaste over having to “pay for health care [for] blacks, browns, and gays.” He also said “racism with the first black president” was the cause of support for a governor who is trying to rein in government employee unions’ political power and head off a looming budget meltdown as public employee benefits spiral out of control.

Biddle went on to explain that Walker was not funded by normal Wisconsinites, but rather the “Koch brothers, corporations, [and] rich people” who were “confusing people, scaring people, [and] scaring the elderly about Medicare, Medicaid changes due to the Affordable Care Act.”

All of this was just “nonsense” Biddle informed his young adult audience.

Stating that his opinions “are just fact, the reality of what we live in,” Biddle said that now America focuses on “gay rights, women’s rights, things that polarize people, things that feed into the sense of those deep, like I said, American values of division, racism, sexism, classism.”

Freshman Kyle Brooks, secretary for the college Republicans, who filmed the video, told Campus Reform, “I’m very disappointed. What could have been a productive dialogue turned into a divisive rant smearing the conservative movement.”

This article was originally posted at nationalreview.com

Written by Don Irvine, Accuracy in Media

Last Friday evening at the  South Carolina Democratic Party’s annual dinner, party chairman Dick Harpootlian said he hoped that gubernatorial candidate Vincent Sheheen would send Gov. Nikki Haley “back to wherever the hell she came from,” in an obvious reference to Haley’s Indian heritage.

Harpootlian, who has a reputation for shooting his mouth off—he accused Lindsey Graham of being ”light in the loafers” in 2002—defended his remarks by saying he was referring to the country Haley came from and not her Indian heritage.

That explanation didn’t sit too well with MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski, who said, “you don’t do that,” noting that Haley was raised in South Carolina, attended Clemson and that her parents were Sikh immigrants.

Brzezinski, before admitting that a liberal bias was protecting Harpootlian, also mentioned that this wasn’t the first time Harpootlian attacked Haley. Last year he said she was missing in action and “down in the bunker, a la Eva Braun.” Then came the acknowledgement:

Let me just say, fair enough, that if a Republican did this, we’d be covering it like crazy — so we’re covering it because it was wrong and those statements were absolutely wrong.

While Mark Halperin didn’t concede that there had been a liberal bias, both Willie Geist said Mike Barnicle agreed that if it had been the head of the South Carolina Republican Party making a similar remark about a Democrat, the reaction would have been very different, with Barnicle adding, “we would have led with it.”

For the rest of the liberal media, what Harpootlian said isn’t racist, because as we learned during the 2012 election, Democrats can’t be racist.

UPDATE: Harpootlian now says he meant Haley should return to her previous profession—she was an accountant at her parent’s clothing store.