1

Laurie Higgins on WYLL with Mark Elfstrand

On Tuesday afternoon, radio host Mark Elfstrand interviewed IFI’s Laurie Higgins about her recent article addressing the Black Lives Matter movement and the foolish and false statement made by Chicago Urban League president Shari Runner on the “root cause” of gang-on-gang and black-on-black violence.

Mark and Laurie also discussed her article about Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s decision to join other liberal states in filing an amicus brief in a federal district court in Texas in support of mandatory coed restrooms and locker rooms in all public schools.

Additionally, Mark asked Laurie about IFI’s letter of warning written by attorney Jason Craddock that was sent to Illinois State Board of Education Superintendent Dr. Tony Smith and Board Chairman Rev. James Meeks in June.  In this letter, we warned them of anticipated lawsuits (which could cost our school districts millions) and asked them to prohibit school administrators from implementing a policy that would permit gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex restrooms and/or locker rooms.

We also have an important call-to-action for this issue:

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send  Superintendent Smith and Board Chairman Meeks an email or a fax to let them know that you are resolutely against any policy that would have male and female students sharing restrooms or locker rooms.

You can also call Dr. Smith’s office at (312) 814-2220 and/or Rev. Meeks’ office at (217) 557-6626 to leave a message of concern.

To listen to this 10-minute interview, please click the link HERE or the graphic below:


Bachmann_date_tumbnailIFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachman!

Please register today, before the early bird special expires…

register-now-button-dark-blue-hi




IFI to State Board of ED: Don’t Comply With Obama’s Locker Room Mandate

At the DNC Convention, Michelle Obama made this presumptuous statement:

[T]his election and every election is about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four or eight years of their lives.

Her husband’s non-legal attempt to do just that—to exploit his power to shape the lives of other people’s children—is no more evident than in his command to every government school to allow boys in girls’ locker rooms and restrooms and vice versa. His order, delivered via the Department of Education’s Office for (un)Civil Rights, commands schools to allow students who reject their sex to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms and to do so based on nothing more than their claim that they feel like the opposite sex—or both sexes.

In order to attempt to undergird this diktat with a patina of legal authority, the Office for (un)Civil Rights falsely claims that when Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination based on “sex,” the word “sex” includes “gender identity.” If this redefinition of the word “sex” by unelected government bureaucrats prevails, schools will be prohibited from discriminating based on either sex or “gender identity” (i.e., subjective feelings about one’s objective, immutable sex) in even school facilities in which intimate, personal activities take place.

So, what will this mean? It means that eventually all restrooms, locker rooms, and showers will be co-ed. There will remain no way for schools to prevent non-“trans” students (i.e., normal students) from using opposite-sex locker rooms or showers. Schools will not be able to prohibit boys who accept their sex (i.e., normal boys) from using girls’ locker rooms based on the fact that they are objectively male because schools will have already have allowed other objectively male persons in girls’ locker rooms. And schools will not be able to prohibit normal boys (aka “cisgender” boys) from using girls’ locker rooms, showers, or restrooms because they are not “trans,” because that would constitute discrimination based on “gender identity.” The end game is the obliteration of all public recognition and accommodation of sex differences even in private areas.

If Obama’s pernicious goal is realized, people of faith will no longer be able to justify keeping their children in public schools. Parents cannot ethically place their children under the tutelage of teachers, administrators, and school board members so foolish that they don’t understand the meaning of biological sex and who will not protect the physical privacy of children and teens.

In the service of preventing this abuse of power and the destruction of respect for sex differences in our taxpayer-funded schools, IFI has sent this letter of warning, written by attorney Jason Craddock, to the Illinois State Board of Education Superintendent Dr. Tony Smith and Board Chairman Rev. James Meeks.

letter_of_warning(Click to enlarge)

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send  Superintendent Smith and Board Chairman Meeks an email or fax asking them to please prohibit school administrators from implementing a policy that would permit gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex restrooms and/or locker rooms.

Let these school officials know that under no circumstance will your child be permitted to share a restroom or locker room with students of the opposite sex. Let them know that as a taxpayer, you are concerned about the modesty, privacy, and safety of students and about the liability of school districts for failing to protect students.



Follow IFI on Social Media!

SM_balloons

Be sure to check us out on social media for other great articles, quips, quotes, pictures, memes, events and updates.

Like us on Facebook HERE.
Subscribe to us on YouTube HERE!
Follow us on Twitter @ProFamilyIFI




Grandmas and Ex-Porn Addicts Ban Together to Fight a Common Enemy

Concerned grandmas and old-fashioned church ladies are locking arms with a growing group of young men plagued with erectile dysfunction. 

Yes, you read that correctly. 

This eyebrow-raising army is taking different approaches to fight a common enemy: pornography

Gone are the days of pre-teen boys being introduced to images of naked women’s bodies via discarded Playboy and Penthouse magazines.  Studies show that boys as young as 14 are addicted to pornography easily available on their iPads, laptops, and smart phones.  

The problem is so widespread that in 2009 researchers realized there were not enough college-aged men who did not use Internet porn to form a substantial control group to study in comparison to their porn-using peers. 

The seriousness of porn and its effects on young men, their relationships with others and their lives has its roots in science and the make-up of the brain. Viewing nude bodies stirs a young man’s brain’s dopamine production. Dopamine produces pleasure, and as time goes by, the brain requires more of the hormone to produce the same or greater levels of pleasure.  The dopamine effect unleashed can lead to what scientists now call “arousal addiction.” 

So what’s the harm? Porn viewing is nothing new, and it’s just a natural part of a young man becoming more confident with women to produce mutually pleasurable sexual experiences, right? 

Fact is arousal addiction produced by Internet porn will hit a brick wall in a normal young man’s development. Unnatural arousal is actually destroying sexual performance as the addict experiences gradual desensitization and eventually erectile dysfunction – something medication only cannot reverse. 

Billions of dollars are spent each year on Internet porn and uninformed or disengaged parents naively shrug off the Internet porn phenomenon as natural curiosity. Instead, their sons begin to spend more time alone focused on computer screens as their immature brains demand more and more dopamine and the pleasure it brings. The young men become depressed, withdrawn and develop social anxiety – the fear of interacting with peers, friends and family.  Many become angry and violently act out their aggression. 

It’s at this low point where these devasted young men and their unlikely co-horts — grandmas and old-fashioned church ladies– are converging. Many of these women, having known all along the devastating effects for years of pornography on men, women, children and whole families, have fought for years against pornography. 

They fought to protect innocents from assaults from predators whose arousal addictions began with Playboy and Penthouse magazines. They pleaded with lawmakers to protect women and children from the effects of pornography provided by taxpayers in local public libraries. 

Over twelve years ago, I was among several Illinois conservative women – who were thought to be prudes and pleasure-stiflers  – that marched with members of Rev. James Meeks’ Salem Baptist Church and Bishop Larry D. Trotter’s Sweet Holy Spirit Church around Chicago’s Harold Washington Library. 

An elder at Bishop Trotter’s church had been with his 8 year old son at the library, when his son and he came across a man viewing obscenity on a taxpayer-funded computer screen.  Outraged, the father told the story to his pastor, and Trotter rightfully spoke out to the Chicago press. 

Rev. Meeks proposed we begin printing out some of the scenes available on the library’s computer screens and stick them on the library’s walls to shame the library board. He and other pastors pled with the library board to protect their patrons. A library employee who felt threatened by the unfiltered pornography in the area for which she was responsible also appealed to the board, but all to no avail. 

The American Library Association, headquartered in Chicago, declared filtering Internet access was censorship, and something they refused to endorse, no matter who it offended. Unfiltered pornography access, paid for by Chicago taxpayers, stayed, while concerned parents with children they wanted to protect were dismissed. 

These same conservative women took their pleadings to the state legislature. They asked that Internet filters be placed on library computers. The American Library Association kicked its efforts into high gear, and shamed even family-oriented lawmakers away from voting to require obscenity filters on taxpayer-funded computers. 

These women, now grandmas, were mocked and ridiculed by librarians, the media and state lawmakers for simply trying to ward off part of the attack they knew could devastate the healthy heart and souls of the next generation. 

And here we are today — locking arms with the very ones we tried to protect. 

Now these young men, damaged by the foolishness of a generation unwilling to protect their own, are fighting back for their own sake. They are forming a new movement of ex-porn addicts that meet online to hold each other accountable and encourage each other away from Internet arousal addiction and onto healthy person-to-person relationships.  

October 27 to November 2, 2013, is White Ribbon Against Pornography (WRAP) week.  Whether you’re a grandma, an old-fashioned church lady, an awakened parent or a redeemed ex-porn addict, wear a white ribbon proudly.  

We’re all in this battle together — and there’s hope, no matter what the librarians and lawmakers say.


Please, click HERE to support IFI.

Thank you.