1

What Biden and Never-Trumpers Have Done

Yesterday, Joe Biden proclaimed the evacuation from Afghanistan an “extraordinary success” that was executed exactly the way “the mission was designed.”

Meanwhile, the Taliban celebrated this extraordinary success, also known as the Taliban’s humiliation of the most powerful military in history, in the only way tyrannical Muslims know how: through a shocking act of grotesque barbarism that makes civilized people weep—or vomit. They flew a U.S. helicopter from which was dangling a corpse.

Now, false god-serving radicals and other godless regimes that devalue human life are emboldened. And with Biden’s gift of “tens of billions of dollars’ worth” of materiel paid for by American taxpayers, the emboldened terrorists are better equipped to torture and slaughter friends of America and to enslave women and girls.

If we don’t turn our sinking ship of state around—starting now—in preparation for the 2022 midterm elections, what will our military look like in the future. Sure, we’ll have critical race propagandists; atheist chaplains; hormone-doping, cross-sex impersonators; homosexuals; and pregnant fighter pilots, but will we have a few good men?

Will young men enlist if they can’t trust the commander in chief?

Will young men enlist to defend and protect a country that they were indoctrinated to believe is a systemically and irredeemably racist country whose Founders were evil and whose Constitution should be shredded?

Will young men indoctrinated with the leftist belief that America the ugly must be reimagined and deconstructed be willing to say, “This We’ll Defend,” “Always Faithful,” “Not self, but country,” or “Aim High … Fly-Fight-Win”?

Elections have consequences. So too do the ideas driving voting decisions.

Sanctimonious Never-Trumpers like David French, Lincoln Project members, and Christianity Today writers whose flawed moral and political calculus led them to conclude that facilitating the election of a corrupt, senile recluse who supports the destruction of marriage, the legal right to slaughter the unborn at taxpayer expense through all nine months of pregnancy for any or no reason, and the mandatory indoctrination of children and government employees with critical race theory was preferable to Trump with all his acknowledged flaws.

In so doing, they are complicit in the harm that is befalling those Afghans who helped us.

They are complicit in the indoctrination of yet more American children who will be taught the destructive, disunifying view that America and white people are ugly oppressors.

They are complicit in the eradication of childhood innocence, sex-segregated bathrooms, and girls’ sports.

They are complicit in the growing toleration and even celebration of lawlessness. Biden incentivized illegal immigration that has resulted in human suffering far surpassing anything the press savaged the Trump administration for. Under Biden, police departments have been defunded, financially strapped cities permit looting, vagrancy and littering laws are flouted creating unlivable cities, and mandatory COVID restrictions are scorned by the rich and powerful.

Heeding the words of Biden’s pick to be our ambassador to Japan, Rahm-bo Emanuel, who famously said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste—this one, the Chinese Communist Pandemic—leftist government leaders are incrementally paving the way for a de facto social credit system akin to China’s. No vaccine? No job.

Add to that the requirement by Big Business and Big Brother Sister Sibling that employees must refer to colleagues who pretend to be the sex they aren’t by incorrect or silly pronouns and, voilà, America’s Social Credit System.

As lawmakers plunge America further into debt; as the last few coins are emptied from the pockets of Americans to fill the emptied coffers of the government; as First Amendment speech rights and religious liberty are undermined; as parental rights are stripped; and as deviant sexual obsessions grip the hearts, minds, bodies of Americans and the institutions that shape our lives, we have decisions to make. Will we accept the gift of self-government, messy as it is, and use it wisely? Or will we leave it to the foolish and spiritually blind who will greedily grip the gift and then crush it.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/What-Biden-and-Never-Trumpers-Have-Done.mp3





What Are Gov. Pritzker’s Priorities?

In the midst of the COVID-19 craziness, it is alarming to recognize there are many who are willing to use our current health crisis for their own gain and/or agenda. As these snollygosters and media types grandstand, I cannot help but think of Rahm Emanuel’s infamous quote, “never let a crisis go to waste.”

Ironically, Emanuel first used that phrase in 2008 during the nation’s financial crash and then again last week in response to our nation’s coronavirus emergency. Is it a repackaging of one of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, in which he writes “in the arena of action a threat or a crisis becomes almost a precondition to communication”? I’ll let you decide.

The truth is, the board and staff here at IFI are deeply disturbed to hear the incessant petty partisan criticisms of the Trump Administration by political leaders and media pundits who only seem interested in stoking anxiety and exacerbating division among the American people. In that regard, Illinois’ Governor JB Pritzker has made a name for himself as one of the nation’s chief nitpickers over the last several weeks.

In his first fourteen months as CEO of the state of Illinois, Gov. Pritzker hasn’t pursued policy solutions that would have helped Illinois prepare for a pandemic. Gov. Pritzker hasn’t tried to bolster Illinois’ rainy-day fund, which is now vitally needed to purchase respirators and other medical equipment. In fact, Illinois remains disadvantaged because of the billions of dollars in unpaid bills dragging us down. Instead, like a petulant child, Pritzker awaits bailouts from the federal government.

For the most part, Pritzker’s political priorities have concerned the “social issues.” Working with the “Progressive” Caucus in Springfield, he followed through on his pledge to “make Illinois the most progressive state in the nation” for killing babies through abortion. He helped pass the mandate to indoctrinate young children through teaching positively about “LGBT” history in government schools (K-12). He helped pass an expansion of gambling and increased both gasoline taxes and the cost of doing business with a hike in the minimum wage.

Pritzker’s involvement in getting recreational marijuana passed in the state cannot be over-emphasized. This foolish policy will only exacerbates our current national/international health predicament, as marijuana consumption has been proven to suppress the immune system, leaving users more vulnerable to sickness. He did a great disservice to Illinois’ families, the healthcare system and first responders. BTW, who do you suppose will be paying for these unintended consequences of legal pot? Regarding the “stay-at-home” order, which has now been extended through April 30th, why are abortuaries, liquor and pot stores considered “essential businesses”?

In all of this, Christians should not forget the centrality of prayer and worship to the only One who can heal our land of the myriad forms of suffering people are experiencing. We owe Jehovah-Rapha (i.e., the God who heals) all of our love and devotion (Psalm 41:3). It is imperative to acknowledge that “that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind …” and to recognize that He works in miraculous ways through doctors, nurses and medicine.

Let us not be like the insolent King Nebuchadnezzar who foolishly took credit for building up Babylon the Great. Instead, it is far wiser to humbly and with great lament seek God in worship, praying fervently for His merciful hand of healing and restoration (See Daniel 4:28-37).

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Gov. Pritzker to ask him respectfully to stop using this national crisis to divide the American people. Ask him to stop grandstanding and instead focus on responsible policies that will shore up our foundation. These priorities have been neglected for far too long, and it is past time that we address them instead of focusing on petty politics.


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

 




Is Fox News 32 Chicago Fair and Balanced?

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

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

  • From “Danielle” Love, a cross-dressing man who works at the “LGBTQ” Center on Halsted: “It’s disheartening to the say the least. I think that transgenders of all kinds are just as equally able to provide for our country just as anyone else would be.” (30 words)
  • From “Vanessa” Sheridan, a cross-dressing man who works as the director of transgender relations at the Center on Halsted: “That’s a shame. It keeps people from moving forward with their lives, from being the full contributors that they might otherwise be.” (22 words)
  • Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, bristling melodramatically with unrighteous indignation: “I cannot think of a thing that is more abhorrent on the 69-year anniversary of President Truman integrating the Armed Forces racially.” (22 words)
  • Senator Tammy Duckworth: “I didn’t care about the gender identity of the soldiers who were risking their lives to save me. I only cared that they were American troops and that they were there to rescue me.” (34 words)
  • Colonel “Jennifer” Pritzker, the cross-dressing brother of gubernatorial candidate Jay Pritzker. Yellen reported this about Jennifer Pritzker: “While she’s [sic] a long time Republican, she [sic] has reached out to the president to express her [sic] disappointment.” (17 words)
  • Ed Yohnka, ACLU Chicago spokesperson: “This is really beneath what we want America to be and certainly what we want our military to be.” (19 words)

IFI sent this statement to Yellen:

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

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

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

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

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

So much for fair and balanced.

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

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

  • Is it the responsibility of the military to help soldiers ‘move forward’ with their lives as Sheridan claims? And what precisely does ‘moving forward’ mean?
  • Since the faux-enraged Emanuel clearly believes that pretending to be the opposite sex is analogous to race, perhaps he could enlighten everyone as to what specific ways these two conditions correspond.
  • If I were lying bleeding on a battlefield, I, like Duckworth, wouldn’t care about the gender identity or anything else about those risking their lives to save me. I wouldn’t care if they were anemic, or had orthodontic braces, gout, polydactyly (an extra finger), irregular menstrual cycles, or undescended testicles, all of which are conditions that preclude military service. If I were bleeding to death on a battlefield, I wouldn’t care if the person rescuing me were an infantilist, frotteurist, voyeur, or kleptomaniac. But does the military assess fitness for service based on what criteria matter to those being rescued from imminent death? If that is how fitness should be determined than there would be virtually no criteria.
  • What is beneath America and beneath the military is adopting the reality-denying view that objective, immutable biological sex has no intrinsic meaning or value, particularly with regard to modesty and privacy.
  • What is beneath America and the military is forcing men and women to share barracks, restrooms, and showers with persons of the opposite sex.
  • What is beneath America and the military is coercing Americans to pretend to believe that subjective, internal feelings about one’s biological sex determine maleness and femaleness.
  • What is beneath America and the military is facilitating the rejection and mutilation of healthy bodies and compelling Americans to bear false witness in the service of disorders of the mind, heart, and will.
  • Either the objective, immutable sex of humans matters or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t matter, then all sex-segregated spaces, contexts, and activities should be eradicated. Everything should be co-ed for everyone everywhere. If objective, immutable biological sex has no intrinsic and profound meaning, then there should exist no public recognition and accommodation of sex differences. No single-sex restrooms; locker rooms; dressing rooms; shelters; semi-private hospital rooms; nursing home rooms; athletic teams; or prisons. No more single-sex military barracks, restrooms, or showers. And this would constitute being on the most perverse side of history–a side of history no civilization has ever before witnessed.

Your voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

Make a Donation




Conservative Gets Under Thin Skins of Petulant Progressive News Anchors

The Leftist mainstream press has been on its heels for months now for its biased and erroneous reporting. The more it’s criticized for biased reporting, the more biased it becomes while declaring itself unbiased. Next time Leftist journalists take (or fake) umbrage over President Donald Trump’s criticism of the mainstream press, pretending they think his criticism of bias is an attack on the foundation of our republic, or when a “progressive” talking head goes all middle-school snotty on a guest for his or her criticism of press bias, remember their responses–if you can–to these comments from Barack Obama and his water-carriers who routinely accused Fox News of being a de facto fake news network and shill for the Republican Party:

Obama:

“We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated…. [Y]ou had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition—it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.”

“If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”

“I’ve got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration.”

Implying that negative views of him result from the misrepresentation of him on FOX News, Obama said, “They’re responding to a fictional character named Barack Obama who they see on Fox News or who they hear about through Rush Limbaugh.”

“I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls.[T]he way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak!” 

Obama refers to fictional character Uncle Jim to imply that FOX News is inaccurate: “Uncle Jim, who’s been watching Fox News, thinks somehow I raised taxes.” 

“Look if I watched Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me either. You’ve got this screen, this fun-house mirror through which people are receiving information.” 

Again accusing FOX News of disseminating false stories: “…Fed by Fox News, they hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7, and it begins to seep in.”

“There’s a reason fewer Republicans are running around against Obamacare—because while good, affordable health care might still be a fanged threat to the freedom of the American people on Fox News, it turns out it’s working pretty well in the real world.”

“And if all you’re doing is watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading some of the blogs that are churning out a lot of misinformation on a regular basis, then it’s very hard for you to think that you’re going to vote for somebody who you’ve been told is taking the country in the wrong direction.” 

Obama’s team:

Obama communications director Anita Dunn: “We’re going to treat them the way we would an opponent. As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

Anita Dunn also said that FOX News operates “almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.”

White House senior advisor David Axelrod on This Week with George Stephanopoulos in 2009: “It’s really not news—it’s pushing a point of view. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way.”

In an interview with ABC News in 2009, White House spokesman Josh Earnest described FOX News as “an ideological outlet,” saying, “We figured Fox would rather show So You Think You Can Dance than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform.”

In CNN’s State of the Union, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel shared Obama’s view of  FOX News: “I suppose the way to look at it and the way…the president looks at it…It’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective.”

Recently, Sebastion Gorka, military analyst and deputy assistant to Trump, was interviewed by CNN’s smug, disdainful Jake Tapper who was reduced to a mine-is-better-than-yours playground taunt in this exchange:

Gorka: The last 16 years, to be honest—disastrous. The policies that were born in the beltway by people who have never worn a uniform, the people who were in the White House like Ben Rhodes… helped to create the firestorm that is the Middle East, that is ISIS today. So, we are open to new ideas because the last 16 years have failed American national interests and the American taxpayer.

Tapper: There were plenty of people who wore a uniform who advised President Obama and advised President Bush.

Gorka: Not people as influential as Ben Rhodes who had a master’s degree in fictional writing. That is disastrous.

Tapper: Well, I’m sure [Rhodes] would put his graduate degree against yours any day of the week.

Yes, a news anchor actually said that.

In an interview with Anderson Cooper, Gorka called CNN on the carpet for the absence of substantive “reportage.” When Gorka asserted that CNN’s coverage of the White House was corrupted by the desire to increase ratings, a contemptuous Cooper responded, “Okay, I’m just going to ignore the insults because I don’t think it really gets us anywhere.” Apparently, an obtuse Cooper didn’t notice that in his retort he actually did respond to the “insults.”

After the interview, Cooper ridiculed Gorka, referring to him as the “Hungarian Don Rickles.” This from the anchor who in May said to a Trump defender, “If [Trump] took a dump on his desk, you would defend him.”

Cooper better never criticize Trump for lack of decorum.

MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle embarrassed herself as well. In answer to her question about where Trump would be during the August congressional recess, Gorka said, “[I]n the last 25 weeks, you’ve seen [Trump’s] leadership, from the Southern border, to NATO, to Warsaw, to the economy, to the stock market. We’re crushing it, and he can do that from anywhere.” For no apparent reason other than childishness, Ruhle responded, “Alright, well, the White House doesn’t ‘crush’ a stock market, but I do appreciate your time.”

Maybe I’ve forgotten, but I can’t recall hearing Special Report’s Bret Baier ever responding to a  guest like the adolescent Tapper, Cooper, or Ruhle did.

Some will argue that many of Trump’s tweets are inappropriate, distracting, or worse. Some will argue that Gorka’s comments were unnecessarily provocative (that said, it doesn’t take much to provoke self-righteous, brittle, thin-skinned “progressives”). Neither of those issues is my concern here. My concern here is with the hypocrisy, arrogance, and bias that now corrupt the Fourth Estate. Many on both sides of the political aisle believe a free and fair press remains a critical cultural institution. Many, however, also believe the absence of objectivity, neutrality, or impartiality in most mainstream press outlets (as in many other cultural institutions, especially academia) pose a danger to the republic, and that should concern all Americans.


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

-and, please-

like_us_on_facebook_button




Co-ed Restrooms, Showers & Bathhouses Coming to Chicago

On Wednesday May 18, Mayor Rahm Emanuel introduced an amendment to a Chicago human rights ordinance that if passed would make it even easier for men to use women’s restrooms and other facilities in which private activities take place.

On Wednesday June 8, the Chicago City Council’s Human Rights Committee recommended approval by the whole city council. This Wednesday it moves to the full city council for a final vote.

The current ordinance is bad enough in that it allows gender dysphoric men and women to use opposite-sex facilities as long as they can provide falsified government documentation, such as driver’s licenses or passports, identifying them as the sex they are not.

The proposed amendment, also sponsored by members of Chicago’s lesbian, “gay,” “bisexual,” and “transgender” caucus, eliminates the requirement regarding government documentation. The amendment states that “‘sex’” includes both biological category and gender identity. Each person determines his or her own gender identity; no proof shall be required except his or her expression of his or her gender.”

The ordinance applies to restrooms, shower rooms, bathhouses, dressing rooms, health clubs, single-sex “sleeping rooms,” single-sex residential facilities (e.g., women’s shelters), and single-sex classes that are open to the public.

Kim Hunt, executive director of Pride Action Tank, claims that “This is a matter of human dignity and human rights.”

If gender dysphoric men who wish they were women are denied their human dignity and rights if they cannot shower with only women, then are actual women denied their human dignity and rights if they cannot shower with only women?

The Chicago City Council is voting on this dangerous amendment on Wednesday. If the public does not oppose this ordinance change with a loud and unequivocal voice, the city of Chicago will have co-ed restrooms and showers.

The end of sex-segregation everywhere continues apace.

Take Action:  Please take three minutes to look up your local Alderman HERE, then call or email them to express your opposition to this ordinance.





No Taxation without Moderation

We’re all familiar with the old adage that the only two things certain in life are death and taxes. Yet, one major difference between the two is that for death, there are never any increases per capita and everyone has a flat rate. That certainly can’t be said for the taxes, particularly in Illinois. 

According to recent statistics, Illinois ranks lower among all states in nearly every economic category than five years ago, including a bleak 49th in the nation in job growth.

Despite these depressing indicators, Illinois lawmakers continue to propose new legislative projects and programs that would siphon more money from hard working citizens for various pet projects, including a proposition from House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) to spend $100 million taxpayer dollars on a Barack Obama Presidential Library.

It seems everywhere you turn, there are new taxes and/or additional taxes being proposed. Here are a few examples:

Earlier this year, retiring State Representative Naomi Jakobsson (D-Champaign) introduced legislation for a graduated income tax to replace the flat income tax in Illinois.  The bill is currently tabled for the session. Nevertheless, support among Democrats is rising; this legislative proposal had collected 38 co-sponsors. 

A group called the Transportation for Illinois Coalition is calling for a .04 per gallon increased tax hike on gasoline.

State Senator Mattie Hunter (D-Chicago) recently sponsored legislation to impose an additional tax on soda.

Chicago Alderman Bob Fioretti (D-2nd Ward) is calling for a new commuter tax for those suburban residents who work in the City.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel recently withdrew his proposal to raise the property taxes in the City.

And when Governor Pat Quinn gave his annual budget address to the General Assembly in March, he didn’t mince words about making permanent the “temporary” income tax increase they had burdened Illinois’ families and businesses with three years ago. 

To justify the continuation, Gov. Quinn proposed a $200 million increase in funding for education, all part of his plan for a $6 billion increase in education funding over the next 6 years. Few can criticize spending money on children, but are they really the beneficiaries?

According to the Illinois Policy Institute, 70 percent of new education spending has been spent on teacher pensions. And even if all the money was spent directly on the classroom those positive impacts may be countered by harm caused by continuous taxation. Consider that one of the most vital factors in a child’s environment is the stability of a family. Study after study tells us that a family environment that is financially stable and has parents actively involved in a child’s life is critical to a child’s success in school, even more important than the total amount of time in the classroom.

Yet increasing taxes only add to the financial burdens of parents and families.  Taking a greater percentage of income from working families often require parents to work longer hours and results in greater financial stress, lower disposable incomes and ultimately less time for parents to spend with their children. We are taking needed revenue away from a child’s primary care givers and giving it to a much less effective secondary source. The guise that “It’s for the children” is a suspicious justification for increasing tax burdens.

Illinois is expected to generate $36.66 billion in revenues for the 2014 fiscal year, $588 million more than previously expected. These are record setting amounts, yet the current financial crisis is not expected to improve. According to the Illinois Policy Institute, since the tax increases there has been $18 billion in new state revenue, yet state pension debt has increased by $17 billion, along with increases in the aggregate amount of unpaid bills and the interest the state must pay on those overdue bills. Furthermore, the state’s bond rating has been downgraded five times. And yet there is no sign from Springfield that there is any change of course in the future.

It seems that our elected officials have been something less than good stewards with the state’s finances and yet they are again asking for more. Is there any reason to believe that there will be different results? Until proven otherwise, it is time for the citizens of Illinois to say enough to the government bloat, waste, and incompetence. To our elected officials, read our lips and count our votes: no new taxes.

TAKE ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state representative and state senator to let them know what you think of the effort to make the “temporary” income tax hike permanent.  The voters of Illinois expect their elected officials to keep their promises. Let them know that you oppose any new tax increases when they refuse to cut government waste and bloat. 

You can also call your lawmakers through the Capitol Switchboard at (217) 782-2000. 


 Stand with Illinois Family Institute!

 Make a Donation  




Andrew Cuomo to Conservatives: You Have No Power Here! Be Gone.

Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-New York) has arrogantly proclaimed that “extreme conservatives” have no place in New York. And who are these “extremists”? Those who Cuomo hopes will leave New York include those who believe that women do not have a moral right to murder babies in utero, those who believe that homosexual acts are immoral, and those who believe marriage has a nature central to which is sexual complementarity.

I assume that Cuomo seeks voluntary relocation of those who dissent from his “progressive” dogma, but who knows what presumptuous “progressive” oppressors will desire for untouchable “conservative extremists” in a few years.

What’s really rich in Cuomo’s statement about “extremism” is his apparent ignorance of history and logic. Cuomo seems to be implying that the number of people who hold a particular moral belief determines the truth or rightness of the belief. So, if most New Yorkers believe in the absolute right of mothers to murder the babies growing within them, then dissenters are wrongheaded extremists and have no place in states in which their views are in the minority. 

A few questions for Cuomo:

  1. What if the majority of people in every state were to believe that women have a moral right to murder their babies in utero? Where then do dissenters belong? Where is their place?

  2. Which moral and political beliefs must one hold in order to have a place in New York? Is it just conservative beliefs on feticide, assault weapons, and homosexuality that abrogate one’s right to live in New York, or are there other ideological litmus tests for New York residency?

  3. Historically, Cuomo’s perverse views on feticide and homosexuality have been the extreme views. During those periods of history when Cuomo’s views were extreme, were they objectively wrong as well? And during those periods of history, did extreme “progressives” lose their “place” in all the states in which conservative  views dominated?

Some, including Cuomo, are now trying to argue that Cuomo was merely describing a political reality in New York. They’re arguing that Cuomo was simply saying that since New York is a liberal state, conservative “extremists” will have a difficult time effecting their desired political ends. But here’s what Cuomo actually said:

Are they these extreme conservatives…right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are….Figure out who you are, and figure out if your extreme conservative philosophy can survive in this state. And the answer is no.

Does Cuomo apply this pragmatic philosophy consistently? Does he think extreme progressives have no place in conservative states? Should all extreme “progressives” exit predominantly red states, counties, or cities?

“Progressives” have been fashioning their re-education camps for some years now (i.e., public schools), but perhaps the resistance of “conservative extremists” to curricular propaganda and censorship, and the increasing number of free-thinking “conservative extremists” who are exiting government schools is leading anti-intellectuals like Cuomo to entertain the fanciful idea of sequestration of non-compliants.

Seven years ago as a member of the English Department at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Illinois, I was working in the writing center. At that time, I was urging colleagues who introduced students to homosexuality-affirming resources also to expose students to the work of dissenting scholars. A colleague in the writing center—who, by the way, claimed to be Catholic—told me that she was so sure my views on homosexuality were wrong that she didn’t think they should be allowed to be presented in public schools. This is the astonishing view that dominates public schools around the country. Teachers simply assume that their unproven, non-factual moral and political assumptions (as well as re-definitions of terms) are true and arrogantly censor competing assumptions—all the while proclaiming their impassioned commitment to diversity, tolerance, and intellectual inquiry.

Cuomo inadvertently let the dirty, flea-bitten, nasty cat peak its head out of the extreme “progressive” bag, but he’s far from alone. Remember when Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel said, “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values…. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,”? Chick-fil-A was unwanted in Chicago because its president Dan Cathy believes that marriage is inherently sexually complementary.

The pernicious reality is that many “progressives,” particularly those in positions of power and influence (e.g., those in the mainstream press, academia, Congress, and the entertainment industry), violate virtually every one of their shibboleths: They hate diversity of ideas; they censor with carefree abandon; they’re arrogant and elitist; they’re intolerant; they hurl epithets, and they’re illogical. And they reserve for themselves the right to decide who gets to speak, work, live, move, and have their being in America. 


Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

If you would rather write a check, please make it payable to Illinois Family Action or Illinois Family Institute, and mail it to us at: P.O. Box 88848 Carol Stream, Illinois  60188. 

We also accept credit card donations by phone at (708) 781-9328.




What’s Next?

What’s next?

That’s the question the citizens of Illinois should be asking themselves. Now that our state lawmakers have decided to redefine marriage, legalize “medical” marijuana and teach “comprehensive” sex-education to young children in our government schools,  what’s next?

Let’s put aside for the moment the fact that our state lawmakers didn’t listen to us–we the people–in their feckless decisions. As for same-sex “marriage,” they decided to make the decision without us, our input or our approval, caving in to the political pressure of Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) and the multi-million dollar homosexual lobby. But as frustrating as this is, what is of more concern right now is what will happen next?

Well, the day after the Illinois House voted to redefine marriage, we may have been given a preview of things to come. As I was waiting to be interviewed by Tony Sarabi of Chicago’s Public Radio (WBEZ), I listened to him interview Tracy Baim, the publisher and executive editor of Windy City Times, a homosexual Chicago newspaper.  During the interview, she revealed that the true goal of the radical LGBTQ agenda is to silence and punish any moral opposition to their lifestyle–even pastors and priests:

...the problem with Religious Freedom [and Marriage Fairness] Act is that there are all these exemptions on religion, and believe me, I don’t believe that a church should be forced to perform a same gender wedding.  But if you continue down those exemptions after a legitimate church what happens is you have other people that say on religious grounds that they don’t want to serve people, they don’t want, literally, to serve them at their breakfast counter or serve them in their B&B, or provide wedding photography. And while that is really an emotional issue, and I can understand why the right-wing is very upset about B&B owners being sued, we have to look at this through historical lens–and that is so offensive that people could just decide who to serve and who not to serve based on characteristic of who they are, including their religion. [emphasis added.]

Baim continued:

…this new law that just passed yesterday has a whole series of things in it that are questionable of what is a religious institution. So they bent over backwards to try to be accommodating , but in many ways it is a violation of–well it will be played out in court–of what really can be considered.  So can a club, like the Rotary or the Kiwanis or whatever say based on their religious beliefs they don’t want to do something.  Well they can say they don’t want to serve someone who is of a different race or who is Muslim, etc. So it will be interesting to see how this will play out…  [emphasis added.]

Five law professors who favor same-sex “marriage” identified Illinois’ law (SB 10) as the absolute worst in the nation in protecting religious liberty and freedom of conscience, and still Baim and other radical activists in her community will not rest until all exemptions are eliminated and all opposition is punished.

Baim demonstrates an utter lack of respect for religious liberty, which, unlike “sexual orientation,” is actually included in the U.S. Constitution. Religious beliefs and conscience objections to being involved with an activity–not a person–but an activity we believe is immoral is irrelevant to activists like Baim. All rights are subordinate to their purported right to engage in homosexual acts. Our First Amendment civil rights to freely exercise religion be damned.  

That is exactly what is happening in Colorado where a Christian-owned bakery was ordered by a judge from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to make cakes for same-sex ceremonies or face fines. The baker didn’t refuse to serve homosexuals. He refused to participate in a ceremony that celebrates a union that his faith teaches is an abomination to God. Baim is either dishonest or ignorant when she claims that people of faith will seek to refuse “literally to serve” homosexuals, or “to serve them at their lunch counter.” There is no evidence that Christians seek to refuse to provide lunch to homosexuals at their lunch counters or to sell them donuts on their way to work. Some Christians refuse to use their gifts to provide goods and services for activities (e.g., weddings, civil ceremonies, or sleepovers) that violate their religious convictions.  

And remember how many of our “tolerant” liberal political officials treated the religious views of Chick-Fil-A’s CEO Dan Cathy when he dared to speak in favor of natural marriage? His company was threatened with being blacklisted and forbidden to do businesses in Chicago. Mayor Rahm Emanuel went so far as to say that “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago’s values,” (a strange claim in light of the fact that he worked for Obama when Obama opposed same sex “marriage”).  Elected officials in Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Washington DC said the same thing: Chick-Fil-A was not welcome because the owner holds a traditional view of marriage. 

We have been warning our subscribers for years now:  The end goal of the radical LGBTQ agenda isn’t “marriage equality.” The end goal is to silence any and all moral opposition to homosexuality. And they plan to use the heavy hand of government to censor and punish conservative and Judeo-Christian views on sexuality and marriage. How long before they tell our churches, our ministries and our families that our values are not their values? It’s coming faster than you realize.

Further, if the government redefines marriage for homosexuals, it must continue to redefine marriage for other groups or risk being guilty of the same kind of discrimination of which natural marriage supporters stand accused. So, what will be the next legal battle facing marriage?

Already efforts are under way to legalize plural unions in order to protect the “rights” of polygamists and polyamorists. Late last week, a federal judge in Utah struck down part of a Utah law that outlawed plural marriage. This is the logical and inevitable next step after eliminating sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage. After all, it is far more radical to jettison sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage than it is to jettison the requirement regarding number of partners. 

These “alternative lifestyles” further reduce marriage to any group of people that want to live together and have sexual relations. They also place the desires of adults above what is best for children while ignoring recent studies showing that kids are better raised in a home with a mother and a father.

Now more than ever we need you to stand with the Illinois Family Institute in defending the Judeo-Christian worldview. As we actively defend the traditional, conservative values upon which our country was built, we recognize that we can’t do it without your support.

The attacks our values face are many. They are well-funded, well-organized attacks aimed at destroying our shared values–values that are essential to the continued health of the nation. But we have something that our opposition doesn’t: the majority. Our numbers are far greater than theirs as recent studies continue to show a strong support for natural marriage, life and religious freedom.

Though our adversary is well-funded, politically connected and speaking loudly, we the people have greater numbers that can make an incredible impact if we stand together. Will you commit right now to stand with the Illinois Family Institute in defending our shared values from the attacks of a few people that want to fundamentally change our country?

Whether you can commit to sending a one-time gift, become a monthly donor or help underwrite the cost of specific needs we have right now, every person, and every effort makes a difference.

Please stand with the Illinois Family Institute by donating right now!

Now is not the time to sit back and wait for someone else to get involved. Now is the time to stand up and become a proactive force in defending the values we cherish. Imagine what could be accomplished if you, your family and your friends each decided to get involved. The momentum we could create would be an unstoppable force.

IFI will be leading the charge in 2014 educating voters throughout our state with our Voter Guide, standing up to those seeking to attack the family, continually standing for innocent human life and opposing those seeking to undercut our family values in our government schools.

Our mission at Illinois Family Institute is to stand for biblical, Judeo-Christian values, and in doing so, help bring Illinois back to a state in which religious liberty flourishes, families prosper and every human life is valued. Your support by the end of the year will ensure that we have the resources necessary to fulfill our mission in 2014.

I want to remind you that we have a $25,000 Year-End Matching Grant offered by a group of generous benefactors.  Any donation given or mailed by December 31st will go toward this matching challenge and will be fully tax-deductible, lowering your 2013 tax burden.

Any donation received by (or postmarked on) December 31st will be matched. If you contribute $50 IFI will receive $100, if you give $1,000 we will receive $2,000 and so forth.  No amount, whether a monthly or one-time gift, is too small or too large. We appreciate all of your donations more than we can possibly say.

Please partner with us and make a tax-deductible gift today.

May God bless you and your family this Christmas season.

Sincerely,

David E. Smith
Executive Director 

P.S. Help us reach our goal of raising a total of $50,000 by the end of the month – Donate today!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  

You can also send a gift by mail to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, IL  60188




Is the Gay Pride Parade Above The Law?

Though open containers with alcoholic beverages are illegal during the Gay Pride Parade, missing in official police and parade rule announcements, however, are warnings against violating the Chicago Public Morals Laws, which have been on the books for years and rarely, if ever, enforced in the Boystown gay district throughout the year. 

WARNING: Offensive pictures from other parades HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE.

The month of June was designated as LGBT “Pride Month” by proclamation from Mayor Rahm Emanuel featuring dozens of social, cultural, athletic and political events scheduled by various sponsoring groups, culminating with the 44th annual Chicago Gay Pride Parade on June 30th at noon. The grand marshal for the parade is former NFL player Wade Davis. Parade organizers claim to attract hundreds of thousands of onlookers each year, including young children.

TAKE ACTION:  Click HERE to use IFI’s advocacy system to contact Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy and 19th District Commander Elias Voulgaris and respectfully urge them to enforce Chicago Public Morals Laws. People with same-sex attraction insist on equality but don’t want to be held to the same standard of law as the rest of us. No one person, group or organization should be above laws that protect all citizens from public indecency and lewd behavior.

Chicago Public Morals Laws

Chapter 8-8-080     Indecent exposure or dress.

Chapter 8-8-090     Indecent publications and exhibitions.

Chapter 8-8-100     Sale of literature represented as immoral.

Chapter 8-8-110     Material harmful to minors unlawful.

Chapter  8-8-010     House of ill-fame or assignation.

Chapter  8-8-020     Directing persons to houses of ill-fame.

Chapter  8-8-030     Prostitution or lewdness in conveyances.

Chapter  8-8-050     Soliciting – Penalty.

Chapter  8-8-060     Street solicitation for prostitution.

Quoting from the MassResistance website which features a multi-part series titled, What Boston “Gay Pride” Reveals About the LGBT Movement in America:

Everything you’d want to know about the homosexual-transgender movement in America– its goals, its dark and destructive sides, its targets, its supporters (including many you’d be surprise by) — is brought out in the open during the huge public “gay pride” events in major US cities. In many ways, these are their public statements to the rest of us… Most of America is shown “gay” life on television and in the media in a very sanitized way, as if it were natural and that the latest “civil rights” struggle… Besides “gay marriage,” a major goal of the homosexual movement is normalizing “transgenderism” throughout society, including changing our basic foundations such as the family structure. Make no mistake: This movement is well organized and focused. We all see it through the intense lobbying to push “non-discrimination” on the basis of “gender identity” through legislatures and court rulings. It’s also pushed hard in schools, large corporations and government bureaucracies. On the federal level, the Obama administration has brought it into most top federal agencies… Making a dysfunctional and dangerous behavior the “new normal.” If the transgender movement achieves its goals, this is what people in your businesses, government offices, classrooms, and public facilities will look like — whether you like it or not.

Parade participants include law enforcement, lawmakers and other elected officials, churches, schools, various organizations, agencies and businesses. The entire list is here.

Sources:  http://chicagopride.gopride.com/    http://chicagopridecalendar.org/




Marriage Redefinition Push

On Friday afternoon, the Illinois State Senate Executive Committee heard testimony on Senator Heather Steans‘ “Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act” (HB 4963).  With nine Democrats and 6 Republicans on this committee, the bill easily passed out of the committee by a vote of 8 to 5.  

The hearing included emotionally manipulative testimonies from a self-identifying lesbian mom and a PFLAG parent, two liberal clergy members, and Laura E. Berk,  Professor of Psychology at Illinois State University.  Testifying in favor of natural marriage include Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Paprocki, Rev. Bob Vanden Bosch and Ralph Rivera on behalf of Illinois Family Institute.

Background

The homosexual lobby, which includes Equality Illinois and the Civil Rights Agenda, are working overtime in an attempt to secure support of 60 state representatives for their marriage redefinition bill. Other politicians and groups assisting in passing the measure include Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Governor Patrick Quinn, Lt. Governor Shelia Simon, Illinois GOP Chairman Pat Brady, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the AIDS Foundation of Chicago, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Stonewall Democrats, and Illinois Log Cabin Republicans.

For the past four General Assembly sessions (8 years), a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman has been introduced. And each year, Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) has refused to move it to a committee to be debated and voted on. If this amendment were to come before the entire General Assembly, we are confident that it would receive the two-thirds vote needed to pass. And once passed by the General Assembly, it would be placed on a ballot referendum in the next state wide election forIllinois voters to decide.

We cannot afford to ignore this situation! Illinois citizens can send a strong message by calling, emailing and/or visiting your state lawmakers in support of natural marriage.

Take ACTION:  If you haven’t yet sent an email or a fax to your state lawmakers, please do it now!  Click HERE to let them know what you think.

Please forward this article to your family and friends in Illinois.




Higgins Responds to Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s “Priorities”

Mayor Rahm Emanuel, with his finger ever on the pulse of “progressives”—I mean, Chicagoans—has discerned that two of the top three problems facing the city are the absence of casinos and legalized “same-sex marriage.”

The city’s failing schools, gang activity, murder rate, debt, unemployment, poverty, family breakdown, child abuse, and drug use pale in significance when compared to the absence of casinos. Perhaps Mayor Emanuel sees casinos as the solution to all those problems.

One of his top priorities is bringing casinos to the city, casinos that will disproportionately harm those of lesser incomes because they have less financial padding to sustain the ineluctable losses on which predatory casinos rely.

Judging from his letter to the Chicago Sun Times, his de facto top priority is same-sex marriage, which will further erode the institution of marriage, the erosion of which has already disproportionately harmed the black community.

But why should these inconvenient truths bother Emanuel when he’s got fat cat casino-backers and wealthy homosexuals in his corner.

Emanuel in a display of “progressive” ignorance and uncharacteristic mushiness claimed that “gays and lesbians are still denied one essential freedom: the right to make a lifelong commitment to the person they love.” Say what?

Every unmarried person of major age is free to marry as long as he or she is seeking to marry one person of the opposite sex who is not closely related by blood. Homosexuals are not denied the right to marry. They choose not to participate in this sexually complementary institution.

Homosexuals are simply not permitted to unilaterally jettison the central defining feature of legally sanctioned marriage: sexual complementarity.

Similarly, polyamorists may not unilaterally jettison the requirement regarding numbers of partners, and those in love with their siblings or parents may not unilaterally jettison the requirement pertaining to close blood kinship.

Moreover, homosexuals are not denied the right to make a lifelong commitment. Homosexuals may, indeed, love, have sex with, set up households with, and commit for life to any person they wish.

Mayor Emanuel seems to have adopted the view that marriage is an institution centrally or solely concerned with the loving feelings of those involved. But if that’s the case, if marriage is solely about love and has no intrinsic connection to procreation, then why does the government limit it to two people? And if marriage is solely about love, why not permit two loving brothers to marry?

If marriage were centrally or solely about the recognition of love, there would be no reason for the government to be involved. The government has no vested interest in “recognizing” subjective feelings. The government has a vested interest in the objective connection of sexually complementary coupling to procreation.

The government is in the marriage business because a two-person, sexually complementary union is how children are produced, and the government has a vested interest in recognizing, regulating, and promoting the type of relationship that can produce children—whether or not any particular couple has children.

In describing Chicago’s diversity, Mayor Emanuel paired race and “sexual orientation” revealing that he’s also bought into the intellectually vacuous comparison of race to homosexuality, which is the flawed analogy upon which the entire homosexuality-affirming house of cards is built. Whereas race is 100 percent heritable, in all cases immutable, and has no behavioral implications whatsoever, homosexuality is constituted by subjective feelings, volitional sexual acts that are legitimate objects of moral assessment, and is not 100 percent heritable.

Despite exploiting the language of the civil rights movement by trumpeting his defense of “equality,” Emanuel is not advocating for equality. He’s advocating for the unilateral redefinition of marriage by homosexuals to serve their desires.

Emanuel, envisioning himself as the Martin Luther King Jr. of the homosexual movement, proclaims “Marriage equality is the next step in our nation’s march forward. Illinois must lead the way.” Emanuel would do well to remember these words of Martin Luther King Jr.:

“How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law….An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”

Illinois has certainly proved itself capable of leading the way, leading the way to fiscal insolvency, educational malpractice, and incomprehensible murder rates. Why not lead the way to the destruction of real marriage by pretend marriage.

 




Lessons Learned from Chick-fil-A Imbroglio

Last Wednesday, also known as Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, was a very encouraging day for anyone who values the First Amendment and who believes that government doesn’t create marriage and ought not try to deconstruct it.

Americans turned out in droves to demonstrate their support for free speech, religious liberty, and true marriage. They showed their support by patronizing Chick-fil-A, waiting patiently for hours to demonstrate with their time and their money that First Amendment rights and marriage matter.

For those who have been vacationing in some Internet-free wilderness, Chick-fil-A’s president and COO Dan Cathy has been vilified for stating in an interview with a Christian organization that he believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman and for donating money to organizations that are trying to maintain the legal definition as such.

Pandering Politicians and “Diversity”

The mayors of Chicago, Boston, and Washington D.C. as well as Chicago Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno and New York City Council speaker, lesbian Christine Quinn, in effect, told the entire nation that conservatives are unwelcome in their cities. In so doing, they revealed a willingness to abuse power and an embarrassing degree of constitutional ignorance.

Quinn wrote this in a letter to the president of New York University:

NYC is a place where we celebrate diversity….We revel in the diversity of all our citizens and their families….Let me be clear—I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminatory views. We are a city that believes our diversity is our greatest strength and we will fight anyone and anything that runs counter to that….As such I urge you to sever your relationship with the Chick-fil-A establishment that exists on your campus. (emphasis added; irony Quinn’s)

How do progressives demonstrate tolerance and revel in diversity? They ostracize anyone who does not think exactly as they do. Here are some of the men and women who, according to these elected leaders, would be unwelcome in their cities: Jesus Christ; every Old and New Testament writer; virtually every biblical scholar in the history of Christendom until the late 20th Century; the pagan writers Juvenal and Horace; all faithful Catholics and Southern Baptists; all faithful members of the Eastern Orthodox Church; all faithful members of the Anglican Church of North America; all faithful members of the Presbyterian Church of America, Orthodox Presbyterian and Reformed Presbyterian churches; all Orthodox Jews; all Muslims; the 3,700-member Coalition of African-American Pastors; and, of course, Barack Obama (between the years 2004 and mid-2012 when he opposed “same-sex marriage”).

The good news is that outside the irrational, hypocritical, bullying world of homosexual activism, these five received widespread condemnation even by progressive pundits and the ACLU.

The Strange Theology of Alderman Moreno

Cardinal Francis George responded  to Rahm Emanuel’s claim that support for true marriage is inconsistent with Chicago values (which may be true, if Emanuel is using “Chicago” as a presumptuous synecdoche for himself).  Christians, both Catholic and Protestants, have been encouraged by his unequivocal words, a portion of which are quoted here:

Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval…. The State’s attempting to redefine marriage has become a defining moment not for marriage, which is what it is, but for our increasingly fragile “civil union” as citizens.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Alderman Moreno had this to say about Cardinal George and the Bible: 

“It’s unfortunate that the cardinal, as often happens, picks parts of the Bible and not other parts,’ said Moreno, who added that he was raised Catholic in western Illinois, attended a Catholic grade school and was an altar boy. Moreno said he now occasionally attends church.

“The Bible says many things,” Moreno said. “For the cardinal to say that Jesus believes in this, and therefore we all must believe in this, I think is just disingenuous and irresponsible. The God I believe in is one about equal rights, and to not give equal rights to those that want to marry, is in my opinion un-Christian.”

Four thoughts: 

  • I’m not Catholic, but I assume that cardinals have read and studied the Bible more thoroughly than have altar boys and occasional church attendees. 
  • Generally speaking, it is not cardinals and other theologically orthodox religious leaders who pick and choose those parts of Scripture that suit their fancy. It’s theological heterodox religious leaders, atheists, and homosexual activists who cherry-pick and decontextualize Scripture. 
  • Clearly, a man who thinks it’s “irresponsible” to suggest that Christians must believe what Christ believes understands virtually nothing about Christ’s Lordship or the nature of God. 
  • I wonder if Moreno will catch any flak from progressives for violating the separation of church and state by using his Christian beliefs about “equal rights” to shape public policy? 

The Look of Love

Pandering politicians like mayors Rahm Emanuel, Tom Menino, and Vincent Gray have a greater commitment to currying favor with homosexual activists, who have become increasingly brazen in part because of conservative cowardice, than they do to protecting constitutional rights.

The behemoth of homosexual activism has grown by gorging on political and judicial power, academia, the mainstream press, the entertainment industry, and the arts. Now it stands slavering over the church and marriage. It licks its chops while waiting for these last delectable morsels of civilized life to be handed to them on a silver platter by an obsequious public afraid of confrontation and persecution. Yum, yum, eat ‘em up. 

And they’re no fools. They gussy themselves up in Sunday-go-to-meetin’ finery, deceiving America—especially America’s gullible youth—with the language of love and “social justice,” keeping their gimlet eyes affixed on images that appeal and beguile. Homosexual activists keep Americans from the hard intellectual work of critically analyzing their flawed presuppositions, propositions, and analogies:

  • They want to keep Americans from thinking deeply about whether marriage is a private institution concerned only with the romantic and sexual feelings of adults.
  • They want to keep them from thinking about whether marriage is really an infinitely malleable social construct or whether it has an intrinsic nature.
  • They want to keep them from wondering why, if marriage has no intrinsic connection to sexual complementarity or procreative potential, we limit it to two people.
  • They want to keep them from asking whether prohibiting polyamorists from marrying the persons they love constitutes hatred, discrimination, and intolerance.
  • They want to keep Americans from demanding evidence for the claim that homosexuality is by nature like race.
  • And they definitely want to keep them from asking whether children have any inherent rights to be raised whenever possible by their biological parents. Homosexual activists don’t want Americans to ask whether the desires of couples who are sterile by design supersede the rights of children.

Public Controversies and Good Business Practices

Throughout the Chick-fil-A imbroglio, a number of commentators have said that although Dan Cathy has a right to express his views and donate his money to whatever cause he wants, getting involved in controversial social issues is just bad business practice. It’s curious that I have never heard those same pundits fret about the “bad business practices” of Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon who just donated $2.5 million to defend same-sex marriage in Washington State; Disney; General Mills; Home Depot; JC Penney; Marriott; Microsoft; Nabisco; Office Depot; Starbucks; or Target, all of which have very publicly taken sides on the controversial issue of homosexuality.

The Firing of CFO Adam Smith

Adam Smith, the CFO and treasurer of a medical device manufacturing company in Tucson, Arizona, and a lecturer at the University of Arizona, visited a Chick-fil-A on Wednesday, recorded his conversation with the young woman who waited on him, and then posted his recording on YouTube. He is now the former CFO and treasurer of the medical supply company, Vante.

Some are arguing that he shouldn’t have been fired and that conservatives are hypocritical for not supporting his right to express his views. That line of thinking seems flawed. Adam Smith’s problematic behavior was not the expression of his political or religious views. The problems were, first, he publicly impugned the character of a young woman whom he did not know, saying to her, “I don’t know how you live with yourself and continue to work here.”

Second, he continued to record her even after she told him that she was uncomfortable with him recording her.

And finally, he posted this recording, presumably without her permission, online. If this remarkably poised and respectful young woman is under 18, Smith’s actions may not have been merely rude and inconsiderate, they may have been illegal.

The lack of respect for the feelings of this young woman and his lack of judgment in posting his video are more than sufficient justification for his firing.

Final words

Some claim that this incident was “really just about the First Amendment.” It wasn’t. It was equally about the truth of marriage. It was equally about whether marriage has an objective status and whether our government should recognize, promote, and regulate it—or whether it should be deconstructed to accommodate the desires of a small group of people with specious arguments, abusive voices, political power, and deep pockets.

Let’s hope Americans will not slip back into inertia, acquiescence, and cowardice. As Michael Medved said, Wednesday was inspiring.


Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.




Eat Mor Chikin

Last week, we told you how a great American company, Chick-fil-A, was being smeared and threatened by radical pro-homosexual activists, including Chicago’s very own Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Alderman Joe Moreno.   Almost a thousand of you sent emails or faxes to Alderman Moreno demanding that he stop the religious bigotry and intolerance shown to Chick-fil-A and the Cathy family.   Those of us who stand for natural marriage need to be encouraged by Chick-fil-A’s slogan of  “Eat Mor Chikin” — not act like one. 

Despite fierce pressure from the Left, CEO Dan Cathy is planting his feet in the face of criticism and reiterating that their business is as God-centered as it ever was.  Asked about the franchise’s support for family values, Dan responded, “guilty as charged.”  If you’ve been watching the news at all, you’ve witnessed the national debate over Mayor Menino’s threatening response to pro-family comments by the president of Chick-fil-A.  As a result, pro-family leaders from around the country have rallied to the restaurant’s defense, and the defense of free speech and religious liberties. 

This spontaneous movement has called for today, Wednesday, August 1st, to be ‘Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.’  Our whole office had lunch at a local Chick-fil-A yesterday, and we were pleased to see so many of you there.  

Not surprisingly, homosexual activists are threatening to stage a “Kiss-In at Chick-fil-A restaurants on Friday, August 3rd.   Is there no shame?   For these intolerant liberals, there is absolutely no room for people like you and me — or our values — in the public square.   We here at IFI will gladly have lunch at Chick-fil-A and we’ll see you there!




Cardinal George Criticizes Chicago Mayor’s Comments on Chick-fil-A

Originally posted in Catholic World News.

Cardinal Francis George has criticized Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s recent comments on Chick-fil-A, a restaurant chain whose president said recently that he believes marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values,” Emanuel said in response. “They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.”

Emanuel is also co-chair of President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign.

Cardinal George responded: 

Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city? Is the City Council going to set up a “Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities” and call those of us who are suspect to appear before it? I would have argued a few days ago that I believe such a move is, if I can borrow a phrase, “un-Chicagoan.”

“The value in question is espousal of ‘gender-free marriage,’” he continued. “Approval of state-sponsored homosexual unions has very quickly become a litmus test for bigotry; and espousing the understanding of marriage that has prevailed among all peoples throughout human history is now, supposedly, outside the American consensus.”

“Was Jesus a bigot?” Cardinal George added. “Could Jesus be accepted as a Chicagoan? Would Jesus be more ‘enlightened’ if he had the privilege of living in our society? One is welcome to believe that, of course; but it should not become the official state religion, at least not in a land that still fancies itself free. Surely there must be a way to properly respect people who are gay or lesbian without using civil law to undermine the nature of marriage.”

Read Cardinal George’s full comments HERE.




Chick-fil-A Mess Confirms Anti-Christian Bigotry

An ugly cultural truth has been confirmed through the Chick-fil-A mess. Yes, some glimmers of light momentarily pierced the darkness as we saw most of the country’s liberal columnists and pundits condemn Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno, and now Philadelphia Councilman Jim Kenney for their anti-liberty pontifications. 

I say “glimmers” of light because these same pundits also feverishly assured the public that while they defend the First Amendment, they condemn Dan Cathy’s views, lest anyone think they’re ignorant, provincial, un-evolved, un-hip, hateful chuckleheads. 

I say “momentarily” because I have no confidence that a decade from now our liberal pundits and columnists will be such vociferous defenders of speech rights and religious liberty when it comes to homosexuality. We need only look at Canada to see our future. 

Religious discrimination directed at any religion is wrong, offensive, and scary, but what Americans should have learned through recent events is that in America, there’s really only one faith tradition against which our cultural elites pride themselves in discriminating: theologically orthodox Christianity. (Many also rather enjoy mocking orthodox Christians). 

A number of stories have emerged that reveal that Menino and Emanuel are far more generous to and tolerant of those who hold the same marriage views as Dan Cathy but follow religious traditions that aren’t as politically easy to persecute.

Boston radio host Michael Graham explains that “Mayor Menino ‘sold’ $2 million worth of city property to the [Islamic Society of Boston’s mosque] for $175,000, despite their well-documented links to Muslim extremism. The mosque teaches a form of Islam that condemns homosexuals to death.”

Rahm Emanuel proclaimed “‘Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.'” That strikes many as a peculiar comment in light of the fact that until a few months ago the president whom Emanuel served opposed same-sex marriage and said so explicitly during his first presidential campaign.

It’s also peculiar because Emanuel apparently feels no moral queasiness about the Nation of Islam reopening its restaurant Salaam in Chicago even though Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said this about same-sex marriage:

Sin is sin….[Obama’s] the first president that sanctioned what the Scriptures forbid. Now why is it all you politicians take your oath of office on the Bible? If the Book is no good, what the h*ll are you using it for?

Philadelphia Councilman Kenney is a Jimmy-come-lately to the freedom fray and apparently hasn’t noticed that even most “progressives” are troubled by the implications of government efforts to penalize someone for exercising his First Amendment rights.  In his effort to promote tolerance in “the city of Brotherly Love and Sisterly Affection,” Kenney wrote this to Dan Cathy (you can’t make this stuff up): “So please—take a hike and take your intolerance with you.”

The notion that the Constitution guarantees the right of men to marry men and women to marry women is sufficiently bizarre to cause some serious grave-turning among our Founding Fathers. So too would be the notion that opposing “same-sex marriage” could get you in a financial or legal sticky-wicket. This is not progress. Our collective cultural understanding of church-state relations, marriage, and sexuality is devolving from sense to pernicious non-sense.

Please Christians, get educated and speak up boldly while you’ve got the chance. If not for yourselves, do it for your children and grandchildren.

From today’s Chicago Tribune and Scott Stantis:

 

Take ACTION:  If you haven’t yet taken action, please click HERE to let Alderman Joe Moreno know that his actions constitute an intolerant affront to many Illinoisans, threaten religious liberty and speech rights, and demonstrate a profound lack of respect for diversity.  Please be respectful in your comments.

More ACTION:  Pro-family groups across the country are calling for a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on Wednesday, August 1st.  IFI would like to encourage you to patronize a local restaurant, if you are able. For a list of Chick-fil-A locations in the state of Illinois, click HERE.


 

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.