You know you’re living in the dark, deceitful, and depraved Upside Down when a U.S. Senator—a woman no less—says what inveterate liar Elizabeth Warren recently said:

Crisis pregnancy centers … are there to fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination help. … We need to shut them down here in Massachusetts, and we need to shut them down all around the country. You should not be able to torture a pregnant person like that.

Nope, crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) do not “exist to fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination help.” Crisis pregnancy centers exist to help women who believe the only one way to deal with a crisis pregnancy is to terminate the life of their child. Crisis pregnancy centers exist to shine light into the shadowy, deceptive “reproductive health services” propaganda leftists like Warren spew.

CPCs offer ultrasounds in order to provide women with objective, conclusive proof that a human is growing inside them—not a nothing as the left deceitfully suggests. Crisis pregnancy centers offer resources like diapers, maternity clothes, and parenting classes to help young mothers and fathers feel less overwhelmed.

It’s ironic that Warren—the fake Native American—would bring up fooling people. It’s doubly ironic that the fake Native American would bring up “fooling people” in the context of abortion.

The human slaughter lobby has made an art of trying to fool people. They used to call the human fetus “a blob of tissue” and a “clump of cells.” Well, to be fair, I suppose all humans at any stage of development, born or soon-to-be-born, could be deemed blobs of tissue or clumps of cells, but we human blobs and clumps are special kinds of blobs and clumps. And when each of us was in our mother’s wombs, we were blobs and clumps composed of rapidly dividing and differentiating cells with a complex design.

When the blobs and clumps tomfoolery was exposed and became unsustainable, the Warrens of the world began referring to human fetuses as tumor-analogues and parasites. Then leftists admitted that fetuses growing in women’s bodies are human, but they’re not—in the view of leftists—persons.

Deceivers like Warren are trying to fool people into believing that some people who become pregnant are not women, hence Warren’s deceitful term “pregnant person.” All pregnant persons are women. So committed to deception is Warren that she won’t admit that a human in a woman’s womb is a person but will pretend that some men are pregnant “persons.”

Warren tries to fool people when she refers to “pregnancy termination.” That, obviously, is a euphemism, for human termination—the leftist final solution to a crisis pregnancy.

Of Warren’s many grotesque deceptions, perhaps the worst is describing what takes place in a CPC as torturing pregnant persons. While Warren supports, celebrates, and promotes procedures that dismember the bodies and crush the skulls of tiny, innocent humans in their mothers’ wombs, she calls efforts to persuade mothers not to do this “torture.”

The social justice warrior and human rights activist Warren does what all cultural regressives do when faced with speech they hate: She has called for the cancellation of all CPCs in the entire country.

Not yet able to shut down all CPCs, ironist Warren and some U.S. Senate collaborators (Bob Menendez, Mazie Hirono, Brian Schatz, Cory Booker, Tina Smith, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Patty Murray, Jeff Merkley, Richard Blumenthal, Diane Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Kirsten Gillibrand, Ed Markey, and Mark Warner) have an interim plan. They have sponsored a bill to punish CPCs.

One of the ironic reasons they offer for the bill is that “CPCs target under-resourced neighborhoods and communities of color, including Black, Latino, Indigenous, Asian American, Pacific Islander, and immigrant communities.” The bill doesn’t, however, mention the reason CPCs are located in those neighborhoods. They are located there because Planned Parenthood clinics—founded by racist, eugenicist Margaret Sanger—has long targeted impoverished communities of color.

The bill, titled the “Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act” (SAD Act) would “direct the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe rules prohibiting disinformation in the advertising of abortion services.”

The bill accuses CPCs of “routinely … disseminating inaccurate, misleading, and stigmatizing information about the risks of abortion and contraception, and using illegitimate or false citations to imply that deceptive claims are supported by legitimate medical sources.”

Maybe while they’re at it, the FTC could require abortion clinics to advertise that they routinely kill humans.

Elsewhere in the bill, Warren and her fellow abortion cheerleaders refer to the purported use of “misleading statements” by CPCs. Non-profit CPCs that are found to include “misleading” information—as defined by leftists—will be fined up to $100,000 or “50 percent of the revenues earned by the ultimate parent entity” of the non-profit charity.

Warren and her collaborators are trying to transform the FTC into their much longed-for Ministry of Truth/Disinformation Board.

While Warren blathers on about “reproductive rights,” she says nothing about the right of humans in the womb merely to exist. After all, no woman has to raise a child she finds inconvenient or burdensome, or a child who interferes with a mother’s plans for living an authentic life, or a child whose life the mother believes is unworthy of life.

In the conflict between a woman’s “reproductive rights” and a living human’s right to continued existence, it should be obvious that the right to exist is a right of a higher moral order. In fact, it’s the right upon which all other rights depend.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative and Illinois’ U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to vote against S. 4469, the SAD Act. Pro-life crisis pregnancy centers help women through stressful, emotional trials. They not only provide free spiritual/emotional/health care for women, but food, clothes and whatever help is needed. Some CPCs help women find jobs, child care, provide living arrangements and vehicles. They do that so that women don’t feel forced by circumstances or abortion cheerleaders to abort a baby.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/SEN-Warren-Wants-to-Ban-All-Crisis-Pregnancy-Centers.mp3

The 2020 post-election plot thickened on Sunday when Trump legal team attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis announced that Sidney Powell was not a member of the Trump legal team. Naturally, questions and theories about the reason for the separation flooded social media full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.

It is hoped that within a few weeks, we will learn much more about the nature and degree of voter “irregularities” and electronic malfeasance, which in an ideal political world would be a bipartisan issue.

In the past Democrat U.S. Senators Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tammy Duckworth, Ron Wyden, Richard Blumenthal, Edward Markey, Tammy Baldwin, Sherrod Brown, Michael Bennett, and Patty Murray were deeply concerned about the danger posed to election integrity via computer hacking. Ron Wyden sponsored a bill that was co-sponsored by those Democrats that would require,

election bodies to conduct audits of all federal elections, regardless of how close the election, by employing statistically rigorous “risk-limiting audits.”

There are currently no mandatory standards for election cybersecurity, which has resulted in some states operating election infrastructure that is needlessly vulnerable to hacking. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) sets voluntary standards for voting machines, but states can and do ignore these standards. There are no standards at all for voter registration websites or other parts of our election infrastructure.

Can’t we all agree that our voting systems must be fixed before the 2022 midterm elections?

Wyden’s words echo the words of a mysterious Dominion Voting Systems security expert who seems to be missing. Just days before representatives from Dominion Voting Systems abruptly cancelled last Friday’s scheduled appearance before a Pennsylvania House Government Oversight Committee hearing, the name of their Director of Product Strategy and Security, Eric Coomer, began popping up on the Internet. Before being hired by Dominion, Coomer was the Chief Software Architect at Sequoia Voting Systems, he has his Ph.D. in nuclear physics, he loves Antifa, and he detests President Trump (just wondering, are Antifa ruffians Antiffians)?

Since he is an expert in cyber security who works at Dominion and has a dozen patents and pending patent applications pertaining to voting systems, Coomer may be someone lawmakers and reporters should talk to about voting integrity in this recent and future elections. Dominion Voting Systems website and social media, however, seem to have been scrubbed of a lot of information by and about Coomer, so finding him may prove challenging. Maybe Mando the Mandalorian can find him.

As I’ve said before, I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of a conspiracy theory group. For that reason, I’ve ricocheted between wondering if Trump’s legal team and/or Sidney Powell has the goods to prove the diverse about election integrity that have been alleged and the sense that there are sufficient reasons for concern to justify the pursuit of all legal challenges.

Watergate was unthinkable until it wasn’t.

The decades-long secret government UFO program, now called the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force, was unthinkable until it wasn’t. Gaslighting by the government about that was intense and sustained.

Corrupt collusion between the Democrat Party, the FBI, the CIA, and mainstream press outlets to manufacture and propagate a hoax in order to impeach a duly-elected president would have once been deemed the fever dream of tinfoil-wearing conspiracy theorists. And now we know that not only did it happen but also that the colluders then engaged in a widespread, massive campaign to gaslight all of America into believing this widespread massive coup attempt didn’t happen.

The powerful and the uber-cool that strut among us are trying to prevent a full investigation into possible vote-tampering by mocking and intimidating those who say, “Wait just a doggone minute, bub. Let’s take a peek behind the papered-over windows and inside all those Bozoputers.”

Coomer may be a familiar name to some Illinoisans. On September 1, 2016, Sharon Meroni writing for Defend the Vote summarized the now-underground Eric Coomer’s appearance before an Illinois State Board of Elections (ISBE) meeting:

On Friday, August 26^th, during a meeting at the Illinois State Board of Elections, the Vice President of Engineering for Dominion Voting, Dr. Eric Coomer, was asked if it was possible to bypass election systems software and go directly to the data tables that manage systems running elections in Illinois. His response was, “Yes, if they have access.”

Bypassing the election systems software means whoever has access can potentially manipulate the vote without many risks of detection. 

When asked who might have such access, Coomer responded, “‘Vendors, election officials, and others who need to be granted access.’”

Meroni explained what such access means:

Dr. Coomer’s statement is an admission that various vendors, election officials, and others have access to the back end data tables that permit bypassing the operating system’s configuration. It is notable that when someone accesses these systems from a data table, their actions are not logged by the system; thereby making detection much more problematic.

Coomer also shared this troubling information with the ISBE:

We are constantly assessing different threat models against all of our systems we have fielded across the US and internationally as well. Due to the certification environment … we are not allowed to do routine updates without having to go through re-certification efforts, but we do … give guidance on how to best secure systems and … the final mitigation against all of this is a robust auditing canvasing process which all of our jurisdictions have implemented.

According to Meroni,

Dr. Coomer’s statement brings to light a very serious issue all voters should understand. Voting systems must be re-certified each time they make changes to the hardware or software. Recertification is … expensive and time consuming. … What Dr. Coomer told the Board is that Dominion Voting does not go back for recertification of software when threats to their code are discovered. Rather, they rely on post-election audits and providing advice to election jurisdictions about security. …

This is the reality of the security of your vote. Software systems that count and record the vote across Illinois and throughout the USA are not updated to address security problems, and even if they were, the software can be completely bypassed by going to the data tables that drive the systems.

In light of Coomer’s statements, those with the ability to thrash their way through the weeds on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s voluntary voting system certification process, may find these website pages illuminating: Click HERE and HERE.

As Darryl Cooper wrote about the dubious and mysterious Eric Coomer for The American Conservative,

[I]f it was Joe Biden contesting the election results, and the Director for Strategy & Security at a major voting machine provider turned out to be a Proud Boy with decades of involvement in extremist, even violent, right wing political groups. … [Democrats] would ask how such a person ended up in such an important position of public trust.

If everything is on the up and up, why the massive freak-out by leftists (and some Never-Trumpers) over millions of Americans wanting all available legal and constitutional means pursued to ensure the election was fair and honest? Surely, tolerant, inclusive, fair-minded leftists don’t care about cost or inconvenience; they were willing to spend $38 million of taxpayer money on their elaborate ruse to get rid of a man they detest with unhinged intensity.

Maybe, just maybe the deplorables and ugly folks would believe the words of presumed-but-not-elected Joe Biden’s calls for “unity” if his string-pullers would calm down and let all investigations and court proceedings proceed—oh, and maybe get rid of their blacklists.

If you see this man, have your camera at the ready. Ask him some hard-edged questions, like “What kind of milkshakes do you like,” and then run for your life. He may be an Antiffian armed with a black satchel full of Molotov cocktails.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The-2020-Post-Election-Plot-Thickens.mp3

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

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

Written by Rhonda Graff

There is another important U.S. Senate Bill that needs your attention. This proposal ( S. 3398) is sponsored by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and is supported by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE). Introduced on March 5th, it is now pending before the Judiciary Committee, and expected to be “marked up” by the Committee on Thursday, July 2.

The Earn It Act  (Eliminating Abusive & Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act) makes the Internet’s immunity from liability to be considered “CONDITIONAL” on complying with best business practices to:

a) Prevent online sexual exploitation including enticement, recruiting, grooming, and sex trafficking; and

b) Prevent and reduce the proliferation of child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

This bill revises the framework governing the prevention of online sexual exploitation of children.

The Earn It Act creates a new National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention, charged with enforcing accountability on interactive digital platforms. This will be flexible in the face of fast-changing technology and online risks that often emerge overnight… a reality no legislative body is nimble enough to track or oversee.

The Earn It Act directs the commission to develop best practices for interactive online service providers (i.e. Facebook and Twitter) to prevent the online sexual exploitation of children. It requires online service providers to certify compliance with the best practices or else they lose liability protections from claims alleging violations of child sexual exploitation laws. Lastly, the Earn It Act replaces statutory references to child pornography with child sexual abuse material.

This legislation has bipartisan support, and is co-sponsored by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Joni Ernst (R-IA), John Kennedy (R-LA), Doug Jones (D-AL), Bob Casey (D-PA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

Over 75 credible organizations have endorsed it including NCOSE, the National Center for Missing and Exploited, Shared Hope International. But Big Tech lobbyists are working overtime to defeat it. 

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth to ask her to co-sponsor the Earn It Act. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin is already a co-sponsor.

Additional talking points in support of the Earn It Act can be found at this link.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

Leftists, controlled by “LGBTQ” activists and in thrall to their dogma, have redefined yet another term: bullying. They seek to impose their redefinition on all of society in their relentless quest to socially condition everyone into affirmation of their sexuality ideology. There’s no better evidence that they have redefined “bullying” than their claim that Melania Trump’s campaign against cyberbullying is hypocritical because her husband allegedly cyberbullies.

The often-foolish Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank recently made that claim in a column in which he argued that President Donald Trump cyberbullied former CIA director John Brennan by calling him a “political hack.” Milbank also accused Trump of cyberbullying special counsel Robert Mueller, former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman, John Dean, U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Charles Schumer (D-NY), Governors Andrew Cuomo, (D-NY) and John Kasich (R-OH). Milbank’s evidence that Trump cyberbullied these people? He called them names on Twitter.

Milbank’s argument raises the question “What is a bully?”

My Random House Dictionary defines a bully as “a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.”

My American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “a person who is habitually cruel, esp. to smaller or weaker people.”

My Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “a tyrannical coward who makes himself a terror to the weak.”

My Oxford American Dictionary defines it as “a person who uses strength or power to coerce others by fear.”

Is calling famous adults in positions of cultural power names “cruel”? Are John Brennan, Robert Mueller, Chuck Schumer weak? Are they terrified by Trump’s tweets? Does tweeting mean things about famous adults in positions of cultural power constitute the use of coercive strength and power?

Apparently, the spanking new Leftist definition of “bully” omits all references to smaller or weaker people, which means that untold numbers of people—including countless “progressive” pundits, politicians, professors, teachers, and actors—are guilty of bullying.

If all epithets constitute bullying, then was former Obama press secretary, Jay Carney a bully when he called Milbank a “hack.”

When Milbank called U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) a coward and said the president is “surrounded by hooligans,” was Milbank bullying?

When perpetual power-seeker Hillary Clinton called Trump supporters “deplorables,” was she bullying?

When Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn called opponents of the legal recognition of homosexual unions as marriages sophomoric Bible-thumpers, hankie-twisters, and poisonous debaters, was he bullying?

When the editor and publisher of the “progressive” magazine The Nation, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, said former president George Bush was incompetent, untrustworthy, and dishonest, was she bullying?

When former President Barack Obama called Kanye West a “jackass,” was he bullying? When Obama called a segment of the population bitter Bible-clingers was he bullying?

Are “progressives” bullies when they call theologically orthodox Christians ignorant, hate-filled bigots for their belief that homosexual acts are immoral?

Was Jesus a bully when he called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers?”

If someone is a hack, a jackass, or a viper, is it bullying to say so?

If we use the true definition of bullying, it becomes clear who the bullies are. Bullies are those who possess cultural power—and by cultural power, I mean our dominant cultural institutions—and wield it against those with little or no cultural power.

It is “progressives” who control government schools, academia, the arts, professional medical and mental health organizations, mainstream media, social media, and corporate America. When Trump tweeted that John Brennan is a “political hack,” he was not guilty of bullying. When Carney called Milbank a hack, he was not bullying. When cultural power-brokers call an elderly florist a bigot, they’re bullying.

For tactical reasons, “progressives” have decided that when it comes to adults talking about adults, bullying no longer refers to coercive, threatening, cruel treatment of weaker people. They do that all the time. Now it refers to any speech by conservatives that’s not pleasant, sufficiently obsequious, or ideologically aligned with their views. But remember, no one has an obligation to acquiesce to Leftist language rules.

This is not an endorsement of speech that is uncivil or intemperate, but not all unpleasant speech is uncivil or intemperate. There is even a cultural place for expressions of hatred. Decent people with properly formed consciences will hate wicked acts and will say so even in the face of coercive bullying by the culturally powerful.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Leftists-Redefine-Bullying.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

The Democratic Party and liberal pundits are trying to make the case that because Mitt Romney is extraordinarily wealthy, he can’t relate to the struggles of average or economically disadvantaged folk; and if he can’t relate to their struggles, he doesn’t care; and if he doesn’t care, he is unworthy of the office of president.

History demonstrates that that argument fails miserably.

In 2010, the Wall Street Journal published a list of the inflation-adjusted net worth of past American presidents. Some of our finest presidents and some presidents that the Left love were also men of considerable means. Some inherited their wealth, some made it themselves.

• John F. Kennedy (according to WSJ, “Although he never inherited his father’s fortune, the Kennedy family estate was worth nearly $1 billion”)
• George Washington ($525 million)
• Thomas Jefferson ($212 million)
• Theodore Roosevelt ($125 million)
• Andrew Jackson ($119 million)
• James Madison ($101 million)
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt ($60 million)
• Bill Clinton ($38 million)
• James Monroe ($27 million)
• John Quincy Adams ($21 million)
• John Adams ($19 million)
• Dwight Eisenhower ($8 million)

And let’s not forget the extraordinarily wealthy Democrats who have served or are serving in Congress (some of whom sought to be president). Information comes from Roll Call and The Center for Responsive Politics :

Democratic U.S. Senators:

• John Kerry ($193.07 million)
• Jay Rockefeller ($81.63 million)
• Ted Kennedy ($43-163 million)
• Mark Warner ($70.30 million)
• Frank Lautenberg ($55.07 million)
• Richard Blumenthal ($52.93 million)
• Dianne Feinstein ($45.39 million)
• Claire McCaskill ($17 million)
• Tom Harkin ($10.28 million)
• Herb Kohl ($9.23 million)
• Jeff Bingaman ($7.41 million)
• Kay Hagan ($70.6 million)
• Ben Nelson ($6.56)

Democratic U.S. Representatives:

• Nancy Pelosi ($35.20 million)
• Jared Polis ($65.91 million)
• Nita Lowey ($15.46 million)
• Carolyn Maloney ($10.14 million)
• Shelley Berkeley ($9.29 million)
• Lloyd Doggett ($8.53 million)

If being raised by wealthy parents or possessing wealth renders people unable to relate to the poor and unable to be compassionate, are George Clooney, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet callous men unable to feel the pain of the disadvantaged? Are they unable to provide solutions to the problems that plague those with fewer material blessings?

What about Obama’s daughters? They have never known poverty. They are being raised in privilege and affluence, attending the most expensive private schools in the country. Are their characters being deformed by such affluence and privilege? Will they become callous young women unable to relate to the disadvantaged, lacking in compassion, and unable to contribute to solutions for those who have far fewer privileges?

Chelsea Clinton was raised in affluence, attended the best schools in the country, and married a wealthy Wall Street hedge fund employee who previously worked as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs. Is she a heartless, selfish elitist unfit for serving the less privileged?

According to CNBC , Hillary Clinton’s current net worth is $85 million. What will Democrats say about that if she decides to run for president in four or eight years?

If wealth renders people compassionless and unsuitable for elected office, Democrats need to tell Americans how much wealth disqualifies a person for the office of president. And does wealth equally disqualify someone for fitness for Congressional office?

The truth is that one doesn’t have to “relate” to those who are poor to have deep sympathy and empathy for their suffering.  Wealthy people often have the luxury to travel and read deeply about the world. Through these experiences, their eyes, minds, and hearts are opened to the suffering around the world and here at home. It’s true that among the wealthy there can be found greed, self-absorption, and cruelty, but there can also be found thankfulness, selflessness, generosity, and kindness. Sometimes people who have been given much or earned much are acutely aware of their blessings and believe that to whom much is given, much is required.

There is ample evidence that those who have been raised in privileged circumstances and those who have worked doggedly to be successful are fully capable of feeling compassion, demonstrating service, and finding solutions to even the most challenging social problems.  The argument that wealthy people cannot serve the poor is foolish, dishonest, and—as is so often the case with liberal arguments—inconsistently applied only to conservatives.