Written by Pastor Scott Lively

What we call the pro-family movement is a component of the larger conservative movement and deals with matters of sexuality and the natural family. Its American roots are in the cultural backlash to the Marxist revolution of the 1960s that turned family-centered society on its head and swapped the Judeo-Christian morality of our founding for Soviet-style “political correctness.”

Before the 1960s there wasn’t any need for a “pro-family” movement because family values had been the overwhelming consensus of the western world for centuries. Indeed, so surprised were Americans about the cultural revolution that it took nearly twenty years for the conservatives to mount a truly effective response to it. That came under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

The 60’s revolution was not grounded in the Marxist orthodoxy of Lenin and Stalin, but the Cultural Marxism of Herbert Marcuse’s Frankfort School, which envisioned sexual anarchy, not a “workers revolt,” as the key to dismantling Judeo-Christian civilization. The natural core constituency for this ideology was the underground “gay” movement whose dream of social acceptance was not possible without a complete transformation of American sexual morality. Thus, beginning in the late 1940s, Marxist organizer Harry Hay, so-called “father of the American gay movement” was also “father” of the (then hidden) army of “gay” activists most responsible for the “culture war” that exploded in the 60’s and continues today.

America’s Marxist revolution was therefore a “sexual revolution” whose overwhelming success vindicated Marcuse’s destructive vision and became the primary tool of the one-world government elites for softening resistance to their domination by breaking the family-centered society which is every nation’s greatest source of strength, stability and self-sufficiency.

Importantly, though primarily driven behind the scenes by “gays,” the first goal was not legitimization of homosexual sodomy but the normalization of heterosexual promiscuity. This was the motive and strategy that drove “closeted” 1940s and 50s homosexual activist Alfred Kinsey’s fraudulent “science” attacking the marriage-based sexual ethic as “repressive” and socially harmful. It also drove the launch of the modern porn industry, beginning with Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Magazine (Hefner called himself “Kinsey’s pamphleteer”). It drove and defined the battles in the courts where sexual morality was systematically “reformed” by Cultural Marxist elites on the U.S. Supreme Court: contraception on demand to facilitate “fornication without consequences” (Griswold v Connecticut 1966), abortion on demand as the backup system to failed contraception (Roe v Wade 1973), and finally legalization of homosexual sodomy (Lawrence v Texas 2003).

Note the thirty year gap between Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas. That major delay in the Marxist agenda was achieved by the election of Ronald Reagan, under whom the pro-family movement became a major political force. That gap also highlights a critical fact: that “street activism” may be essential to any political cause but the real key to the culture war is the U.S. Supreme Court. By 1981 when Ronald Reagan took power the Marxists had nearly succeeded in collapsing the nation’s family and economic infrastructure and the LGBT juggernaut had come completely out of the shadows and taken its place at the head of the cultural blitzkrieg it had been steering from the beginning. Reagan stopped that juggernaut by putting Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court, the lion of constitutional originalism who wrote the majority opinion in Bowers v Hardwick (1986) which affirmed (not created) the constitutional right of states to criminalize homosexual sodomy and other harmful sexual conduct in the public interest.

Reagan and Scalia stopped the sexual revolution in its tracks and made it possible for the pro-family movement to begin restoring family values in society, which we strove diligently to do. I got my start in Christian social activism in those heady days and served as State Communications Director for the No Special Rights Act in Oregon in 1992 which forbade the granting of civil rights minority status based on sexual conduct. We fell short in Oregon but a Colorado version of our bill passed the same year. We had in essence won the culture war with that victory given that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that minority status designation required three things: a history of discrimination, political powerlessness, and immutable (unchangeable) status (such as skin color). We had a slam-dunk win on at least two of the three criteria and it would have been just a matter of time before we passed the No Special Rights law from coast to coast.

However, Reagan had been prevented by the elites from putting a second Scalia on the court in the person of Robert Bork, and was forced by the unprecedented political “borking” of Mr. Bork to accept their man Anthony Kennedy to fill the seat instead. Just ten years later, Kennedy served his function by writing the majority opinion killing the Colorado law in Romer v Evans (1996), audaciously declaring that the court didn’t need to apply its three-part constitution test to the No Special Rights Act because it was motivated by “animus” (hate) and thus did not represent a legitimate exercise of the state’s regulatory authority. The ruling was all the more outrageous given that it was only possibly through a blatant abuse of the court’s own judicial authority. Kennedy’s “disapproval = hate” lie set the tone for the political left from that point forward.

In Lawrence v Texas, Kennedy delivered the coup-de-grace to Justice Scalia by striking down Bowers v Hardwick and brazenly ruling that “public morality” cannot be the basis for law. Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority in all five SCOTUS opinions that have, in essence, established homosexual cultural supremacy in America, including the infamous and utterly unconstitutional Obergefell v Hodges (2015) “gay marriage” decision. He is, in my opinion, the worst and most culturally destructive jurist in the history of the court: the culprit (among many villainous candidates) most responsible for the current dysfunctional state of the family in America.

So where’s the “bright future” amidst this lamentation? It’s in the promise made and so-far kept by President Donald Trump to appoint only constitutional originalists to the supreme court. It is in the pleasantly surprising discovery that his first pick, Neil Gorsuch, seems from his first comments as a “supreme” to be a perfect choice to fill the “Scalia seat” on the court. It is in the hopeful rumors that Anthony Kennedy is about to retire, and the simple fact that ultra-hard leftist Ruth Bader Ginsberg and leftist Steven Broyer are of an age that their seats could at any time be vacated by voluntary or involuntary retirement.

In short, the bright future of the pro-family movement is in the hands of the man we hired to drain the swamp in Washington DC, and who hasn’t yet backed down in that fight despite the remarkable scorched-earth campaign of destruction and discreditation being waged against him by the establishment elites of both parties, Hollywood and the media.

I must admit that after Obergefell I began to think that the pro-family movement had lost the culture war, but I now believe there is real hope, not just for reclaiming some lost ground, but possibly of reversing all of the “gains” of the hard left over the past half century. A solid majority of true constitutional originalists could actually restore the legal primacy of the natural family in America fairly quickly, and our cultural healing could quickly follow.

As the leftist elites and street activists continue their all-hands-on-deck attempted “borking” of President Trump, let’s not forget why they’re doing it. His political survival means the end of theirs. I can’t think of a brighter future than that for our nation.

This article was originally posted at ScottLively.net

America is not like most other nations around the world. We have a different history and heritage. America is a nation that was founded on prayer. That is something we should not forget during this election year.

A History of Prayer in America

In December of 1621, Gov. William Bradford and the Pilgrims in Massachusetts called for a day of thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God for His provision and protection.

During the Revolutionary War, Congress issued a total of 15 official proclamations, calling for times of fasting and prayer.

On the celebration of the first national Thanksgiving Day, President George Washington declared:

“Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor. . . Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November [1789] . . . that we may all unite to render unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection.”

The most visible signer of the Declaration of Independence, Gov. John Hancock, proclaimed in 1790:

“[I] appoint . . . a day of public thanksgiving and praise . . . to render to God the tribute of praise for His unmerited goodness towards us . . . [by giving to] us . . . the Holy Scriptures which are able to enlighten and make us wise to eternal salvation. And [to] present our supplications…that He would forgive our manifold sins and . . . cause the benign religion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to be known, understood, and practiced among all the inhabitants of the earth.”

In an appeal for prayer, Benjamin Franklin said to his colleagues in the Continental Congress:

“All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?”

All throughout the history of our nation, our leaders have called for prayer to Almighty God.

It’s Time to Seek the Lord

In this election year, many people are expressing fear and anger. Both of these emotions come from a similar place. Things feel out of control. Our future seems uncertain. People are desperate for something that can stop the freefall our nation seems to be in.

The fact is, our greatest problems in America all have moral and spiritual roots. We cannot, as a nation, turn our back on God, and pretend that we don’t need Him, and then expect His blessings.

Ronald Reagan’s words at the 1982 National Prayer Breakfast ring so true:

“I also believe this blessed land was set apart in a very special way, a country created by men and women who came here not in search of gold, but in search of God. They would be free people, living under the law with faith in their Maker and their future. Sometimes, it seems we’ve strayed from that noble beginning, from our conviction that standards of right and wrong do exist and must be lived up to. God, the source of our knowledge, has been expelled from the classroom. He gives us His greatest blessing, life, and yet many would condone the taking of innocent life. We expect Him to protect us in a crisis, but turn away from Him too often in our day-to-day living. I wonder if He isn’t waiting for us to wake up.”

I believe now is the time for us as Americans to wake up, and hear the call for repentance and humility. Rather than the anger and arrogance that has typified much of this election season, let’s approach our Maker with bended knee, and seek His mercy and pardon for our wayward hearts. Only then can we expect the needed rebuilding and restoration of our country to begin.

“Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me,
and I will hear you. You will seek Me and find Me,
when you seek Me with all your heart.
I will be found by you, declares the LORD.”
~Jeremiah 29:12-14a

In 1929, Josef Stalin signed a law that dealt a devastating blow to religious freedom in Russia. For most of a century, Russian Christians suffered enormous persecutions for their faith. Some estimates suggest that as many as 20,000,000 Christians may have been martyred in prison camps in the 20^th century for holding to their faith. One historian stated that over 85,000 Russian Orthodox Priests were shot in 1937 alone.

Communism, despite its slogans of equality and social utopia, has never come through on its promises. Stalin’s draconian measures were reaffirmed by Leonid Brezhnev’s updated legislation in 1975. A remnant of faithful underground churches remained active, but experienced severe opposition and punishment.

On November 9, 1989, the unbelievable happened. Two years after Ronald Reagan’s famous, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” speech, the Berlin Wall, separating East and West Germany came down. A new policy of reform and religious liberty was proclaimed in the Soviet Union. And indeed, changes began to happen.

In October of 1990, President Mikhail Gorbachev and RSFSR’s Boris Yeltsin (then chairman of the Russian parliament or Supreme Soviet), both introduced new legislation allowing for an opening of religious freedom and liberty of conscience.

Soon, Christian ministries from the West poured into Russia with evangelism and Christian discipleship tools. We must not be deceived, however, into thinking that everything was rosy. During the Clinton administration, a mass immigration occurred as Christians from Russia poured into the United States seeking asylum for religious persecution.

The KGB was still deeply entrenched in positions of power in Russia. They were just subtler and covert. But nonetheless, an unprecedented access to religious materials and Western media became available, and it seemed the door of communism would never close again on the former USSR.

The Noose is Tightened Again

In 1997, a new law was passed governing religion in Russia, but it gave no definition or description of how religious expression and promotion could be administered. Some local regions had laws restricting open expression, but most areas have been relatively open and unharassed.

However, on July 6, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a controversial anti-terrorism law that infringes on many human rights, including religious freedom. It restricts proselytizing of religion in Russia, and imposes heavy fines for violators. The new law applies to all religious groups except for the Russian Orthodox Church (which many religious groups claim has been under the thumb of the Russian government for many decades).

Under the new law, any promotion of Christian faith, outside of an officially recognized church building, would be considered subversive, and would be faced with a fine of up to $780 for an individual, or $15,000 for an organization. It has been reported that this may apply even to evangelizing in homes or over the internet. Foreign missionaries who violate the ordinance would be deported. According to Christianity Today, “The ‘Yarovaya package,’ requires missionaries to have permits, makes house churches illegal,” among other restrictions.

Placing restrictions on religion by means of amendments to a terrorism bill was a clever move on Putin’s part. Who would want to be seen as standing up for terrorism? And, I’m sure it has been argued, religion, after all, has been the driving force between much of global terrorism. Although this measure has been condemned by religious leaders around the world, it is almost certain that Putin and his henchmen will remain deaf to their concerns.

Coming to America?

For the past half century there has been, in America, an increasing push to privatize religion. The courts have reaffirmed the desires of the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, American Atheists, and others, to see all vestiges of public expressions of faith eradicated. What you want to believe in your own personal little heart about God, or the tooth fairy, or whatever you want to call Him or it, is between you and your god. But don’t bring it into the public square.

Systematically, Bible distribution in schools, public displays of the Ten Commandments, nativity scenes on public property, and public prayers in Jesus’ name are all being removed by a left-leaning, black-robed oligarchy.

The New Tolerance

It goes beyond mere privatization, however. Now, there is even a desire to move into the realm of regulating moral conscience. Atheist leader, Richard Dawkins, has suggested that it is child abuse to teach your children to believe the tenets of Christianity as being objectively true.

Many evangelical leaders in America have predicted the coming of religious persecution in America. In his 2014 inauguration speech as President of the National Religious Broadcaster’s convention, Jerry Johnson predicted a move against freedom of speech in Christian broadcasting, on the basis of supposed, “Hate Speech” legislation.

At a national homeschooling leadership conference in Chicago in 2010, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, former pastor of the historic Moody Church in Chicago told the audience they should encourage Christian homeschooling parents they serve to teach their children about the history of religious persecution as a part of their education. Dr. Lutzer has authored a book entitled “When a Nation Forgets God: 7 Lessons We Must Learn from Nazi Germany.” Author and radio host Eric Metaxas describes the book this way: “It clearly and powerfully explains what the parallels are between Germany’s fall from grace and the beginning of our own fall.”

Christian leaders like Dr. Albert Mohler, Russell Moore and others, and even former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scailia have suggested the possible threat to religious liberty posed by the SCOTUS’ decision on same-sex marriage. What happens if a Christian college or seminary is required by law to allow same-sex dating on campus?

We’ve already seen nationally televised court cases regarding Christians who have refused to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples, or Christian county clerks who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The fact is, it is not enough for atheists, homosexuals, socialists and cultural leftists to have their own freedom and equality to believe whatever they believe (a freedom which most Christians fully support). No, they want to ensure that Christians are not permitted to live out their own faith and convictions without retribution. This is the legacy of the New Tolerance movement. The doors of religious liberty are closing once again in Russia, after a brief twenty-six year limited window. Are the doors of our four-hundred year window of liberty closing? Frankly, that answer will be determined by what this generation of Christians in America does in the next ten years.

Written by Edward Ronkowski

I retired after three decades as a prosecutor.  While in the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, I drafted a training manual called Narcotics Law which was later used in the office as a manual for Assistant States Attorneys for over a decade and years after I retired.  After I retired I have defended people accused of violating the Cannabis Control Act.  Knowing how the system really works, I can dispel several cannabis myths. It’s like Ronald Reagan said, “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”

Myth Number 1: Jail time

First time Cannabis users don’t go to jail or prison.  Defense attorneys game the system to keep clients from being sentenced to jail or prison.  It almost always takes at least five arrests for cannabis violations before jail or prison time is considered.  In Cook County they have what is called Drug School.  First offenders are allowed to go to classes and if they attend, the case is dropped without a conviction. Defense attorneys say their clients like Drug School because it exposes the dealers who were caught on a mere possession charge to new customers.   You can only get Drug School once.

Second misdemeanor cannabis offenders are allowed to get Court Supervision for a year or two.  At the end of the Supervision, the court enters a finding of not guilty.

A third arrest for a cannabis violation usually ends up in 710 Probation which is for first time offenders and is expungable.

A fourth arrest can ends up in a Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) probation if the defendant claims he has a substance abuse problem.  TASC dispositions are also expungable.   Now cannabis arrestees can ask for “Second Chance Probation” instead of TASC Probation.  At the end of Second Chance Probation the defendant gets discharged.

A fifth arrest ends up in in straight probation with no jail time because the offender is “clean” with no prior convictions.  Occasional errors of omission on rap sheets and criminal histories allow defendants to get these programs more than once.  So only after the fifth arrest will judges start giving out jail or prison because probation did not work.  With a docket of murderers and other violent criminals, judges give away the store rather than be bothered by such relatively innocuous violators. When a defendant is at the end of his rope with these programs the defense attorney will try to win a motion to suppress, win a bench trial, or win jury trial to avoid real jail or prison time.

Every year the Illinois Department of Corrections releases an Annual Report showing what percent of the prison population is in for what type of crimes.   The latest report is for 2014 and it shows that 1.4% of Illinois’ prison population is in prison for violations of the Cannabis Control Act. None of these are mere users.  This 1.4% are the dealers doing time, most on plea bargained reduced charges, where the seizures are measured in pounds or tons.

Myth Number 2: Cannabis is Harmless

The last 20 year of research reveals “what isn’t so.”

Marijuana use has become increasingly prevalent over the years, and the review of marijuana studies summarizes what researchers have learned about the drug’s effects on human health and general well-being over the past two decades. One such peer reviewed academic study was done by Wayne Hall, a professor and director of the Center for Youth Substance Abuse Research at the University of Queensland in Australia.  Professor Hall examined scientific evidence on marijuana’s health effects between 1993 and 2013.   He found that adolescents who use cannabis regularly are about twice as likely as their nonuser peers to drop out of school, as well as experience cognitive impairment and psychoses as adults. Moreover, studies have also linked regular cannabis use in adolescence with the use of other illicit drugs

Researchers in the studies debated whether regular marijuana use might actually lead to the use of other drugs.  Professor Hall pointed to longer-term studies and studies of twins in which one used marijuana and the other did not as particularly strong evidence that regular cannabis use may lead to the use of other illicit drugs

The risk of a person suffering a fatal overdose from marijuana is “extremely small,” and there are no reports of fatal overdoses in the scientific literature, according to the review. However, there have been case reports of deaths from heart problems in seemingly otherwise healthy young men after they smoked marijuana, the report said. Professor Hall said, “The perception that cannabis is a safe drug is a mistaken reaction to a past history of exaggeration of its health risks.”

Marijuana use carries some of the same risks as alcohol use, such as an increased risk of accidents, dependence and psychosis, he said.  It’s likely that middle-age people who smoke marijuana regularly are at an increased risk of experiencing a heart attack, according to the report. However, the drug’s “effects on respiratory function and respiratory cancer remain unclear, because most cannabis smokers have smoked or still smoke tobacco,” Professor Hall wrote in the review.

Regular cannabis users also double their risk of experiencing psychotic symptoms and disorders such as disordered thinking, hallucinations and delusions — from about seven in 1,000 cases among nonusers to 14 in 1,000 among regular marijuana users, the review said. And, in a study of more than 50,000 young men in Sweden, those who had used marijuana 10 or more times by age 18 were about two times more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia within the next 15 years than those who had not used the drug.

Critics argue that other variables besides marijuana use may be at work in the increased risk of mental health problems, and that it’s possible that people with mental health problems are more likely to use marijuana to begin with, Hall wrote in the review. However, other studies have since attempted to sort out the findings, he wrote, citing a 27-year follow-up of the Swedish cohort, in which researchers found “a dose–response relationship between frequency of cannabis use at age 18 and risk of schizophrenia during the whole follow-up period.”  In the same study, the investigators estimated that 13 percent of schizophrenia cases diagnosed in the study “could be averted if all cannabis use had been prevented in the cohort,” Professor Hall reported.

As for the effects of cannabis use in pregnant women, the drug may slightly reduce the birth weight of the baby, according to the review.

The effects of euphoria that cannabis users seek from the drug come primarily from its psychoactive ingredient, called delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, better known as THC, Hall wrote in the review. During the past 30 years, the THC content of marijuana in the United States has jumped from less than 2 percent in 1980 to 8.5 percent in 2006. The THC content of the drug has also likely increased in other developed countries, Hall wrote in the report.

Some argue that there would be no increase in harm, if users adjusted their doses of the drug and used less of the more potent cannabis products to get the same psychological effects they seek, Professor Hall said.   However, “the limited evidence suggests that users do not completely adjust dose for potency, and so probably get larger doses of THC than used to be the case,” Hall said.

Studies on the use of alcohol — and, to a lesser extent, other drugs such as opioids — have also shown that more potent forms of these substances increase users’ level of intoxication, as well as their risk of accidents and developing dependence, he added. People who drive under the influence of marijuana double their risk of being in a car crash, and about one in 10 daily marijuana users becomes dependent on the drug, according to a new review.

With cannabis use not deterred by law enforcement efforts as currently practiced, the deleterious effects of cannabis use, especially on our youth will increase over time.

Ed is a former Will County and Cook County Assistant State Attorney with 30 years of prosecutorial experience. He also recently served two terms as Will County Republican Chairman.

The housing market wasn’t the only bubble which burst in 2008. It was the first time many Christian conservatives realized just how much had changed and how far afield we had corporately strayed. Not only were our most stable assets, our homes and banking institutions, vulnerable to predation and illusory in their permanence, but our friends, neighbors, and even family members were gullible enough to drool over a nebulous politician from Chicago who planned to harness the political machinery in Washington to heal the planet.

For many, this was the first inkling that something was rotten in Denmark. Not that all was peaches and cream up to then. September 11^th was only seven short years prior. But until the fall of 2008, the case could be made that we were fundamentally untransformed, despite the horror of 9/11 and the emotional strain of multiple “military engagements” overseas. November 4^th, 2008 would change all of that.

Looking back, it almost feels like ancient history. It’s difficult to remember a time when good wasn’t castigated as evil and evil wasn’t celebrated as good. Together, we have fought the good fight for the past seven years, winning a few but losing more. And the entire time, we’ve keyed on specific guideposts, trusting them to pull us through, while our freedoms visibly eroded under the waves of a progressive tsunami.

“We can survive to the 2010 elections. We must.”

“2012 is only a couple years away! Let’s do what we can to slow things down until then.”

“If we can win big in 2014, we can limit the damage which can be done before the next Presidential election.”

“Check the calendar, I think Lame Duck Season is open! Bring on 2016!!”

Marking time until the next election was instinctual, almost a survival method for the habitually-abused; but in doing so, I believe we might have done ourselves a disservice. After all, there is no guarantee that things will get any better after the 2016 election cycle. As happened in 2010. 2012, and 2014, it’s possible that the conservative base will once again come out in startling numbers to sweep more Republicans into office on a cresting wave of outrage. As also happened in 2011, 2013, and 2015, this will make very little difference in our nation’s capitol. We have an Establishment Party which has already decided to marginalize anyone who breaks rank. This party resembles a coin with heads on both sides, one elephant and one donkey. Two heads—one coin. Two sides of one overarching agenda: to do whatever it takes to grow the federal leviathan and restrict individual liberty.

Like many of you, I pray that we will elect representatives who believe in the rule of law, inalienable rights, Constitutional fidelity, and American exceptionalism. But even if the 2016 Presidential ticket featured Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Jr., the political headwinds would still be prohibitive. Our nation is firmly under the direction of the Establishment Party, operating under the approval and protection of an adoring media. The Party has plenty of means to gum up the works and the lapdog reporters will spin it in the most favorable manner for the ruling class. All of this assumes a best-case scenario next November, that God-fearing conservatives actually make it into office…

So where does that leave us?

Forlorn? Dejected and unmotivated? Hardly.

As the Koheleth reminds us in the eleventh chapter of Ecclesiastes, the crops will not be planted if we wait for the winds to cease. The harvest will stand unreaped if we tarry for the sun to shine. There is a time for reading the weather and there is a time to plant and harvest. We have seen the dark clouds and we feel the wind growing stronger each day. Now is the time that we must plant. Now is time we must prepare for the harvest.

What does this mean, specifically? It means we use the opportunity which encroaching darkness provides. A lamp never shines brighter than when it is lit in complete darkness. Our nation is growing dark and just might continue to darken, despite all our efforts over the next year.  This should not deter us from standing together and continuing to plant with the seeds we’ve been given. Will our efforts be rewarded with another Great Awakening? God willing and the creek don’t rise.

But if the creek does rise or God’s righteous judgment falls on our land, we can consider ourselves even more splendidly blessed. As when Elijah was set against 400 prophets of Baal, God was not content to simply spark a fire from the wood which was stacked in front of His prophet. Instead, He led Elijah to douse the wood with water three times before accomplishing His purpose and setting it alight. If we too are stacked in front of a jeering mob and drenched with water, may we too have the privilege of blazing with His flame, made more astonishing and remarkable thanks to the adversity of our circumstances and the strength of God’s provision.

Please support IFI as we fight for liberty & work to advance the truth
about the sanctity of life & importance of marriage in our culture!

Why We Must Defend Religious Liberty

In Appleton, Wisconsin, Marge Christensen labors tirelessly to share the Gospel. In her eighties, Marge is active in her church and has been promoting biblical citizenship for more than twenty years. She and her husband are ambassadors for the Alliance Defending Freedom and have been working lately to encourage churches to promote marriage with greater boldness.

Recently, Marge shared with a colleague of mine that churches do not seem to sense the urgency of teaching on matters of marriage, family and especially religious liberty.

Folks, that’s a problem.

A friend of mine, you may have heard of him, Rick Santorum, shares Marge’s concerns. After a long and illustrious career in politics, Rick has taken over as chief executive of EchoLight Studios with the goal of bringing top-notch and redemptive media to a darkened culture.

EchoLight’s latest documentary film, “One Generation Away,” draws its inspiration from Ronald Reagan’s famous inaugural address as California’s 33rd governor. In it, Reagan warned: “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”

Several of the cases examined in the movie are familiar to us. There’s the decades-long battle to remove the large cross from the Mt. Soledad Veteran’s Memorial in San Diego. And then there’s the coercive healthcare mandate that sought to force businesses like Hobby Lobby to violate Christian conscience and pay for abortion-inducing drugs.

But what makes “One Generation Away” so interesting and valuable is that it interviews leaders on both sides of the issue. Along with a great cast of stalwart defenders of religious freedom like Mike Huckabee and Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation, you’ll hear from members of the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State—people who are leading the crusade to restrict religious expression in public life.

And as I myself say in the film (and yes, I was privileged to take a part in it), to preserve our freedom we have to know what our liberties are and what they aren’t. And we have to defend them—and that requires knowing our opponents’ arguments and intentions.

Part of the task will be reminding our fellow Christians that we believers have full rights of citizenship. Too many of us have bought into the idea that religion is purely a private matter. God forbid! As Vincent Munoz of Notre Dame said so well in the film, “Just as other citizens can bring their convictions into the public square, religious citizens can and should bring their convictions into the public square. Don’t you lose your rights because you’re religious!”

Folks, the lesson of “One Generation Away” is that vigilance in defending our freedoms is not a one-time task, but a sacred trust that we pass from generation to generation.

This is why I hope you will get your church to host a screening of “One Generation Away”—and please get your friends and neighbors to attend. Come to BreakPoint.org and click on this commentary. We’ll link you to the movie’s website so you can learn how your church can premiere the movie at no cost to you or your congregation.

Folks, we’ve got to do something. And this is something we can do. I hope you’ll do it.

This article was originally posted at the BreakPoint.org website.

For years now, anti-Christian activists have been pushing the hate button and accusing those of us who hold to biblical morality and family values of being intolerant, hate-filled bigots (and worse).

But this strategy, seen most recently in the attack on godly twin brothers, Jason and David Benham, will inevitably defeat itself. After all, when the alleged victims are the bullies and the alleged tolerant ones are full of bigotry, their rhetoric cannot be taken seriously.

Back in 2008, as Californians voted to preserve marriage with the Proposition 8 marriage amendment, the amendment was quickly dubbed Prop Hate, as if the only way anyone could believe that marriage was the union of a man and woman was if they were full of hate.

But that was only the beginning. In Sacramento, demonstrators held signs reading: 

• Prop 8=American Taliban
• Ban Bigots
• Majority Vote Doesn’t Matter
• 52%=Nazi [this referred to the 52-48% vote in favor of Prop 8]
• Don’t Silence the Christians, Feed Them 2 the Lions
• Your Rights Are Next

Taliban? Nazis? Feed them to the lions?

This kind of demonization will only defeat itself in the long run exposing who the real bigots are.

In the last week, as soon as my newest book was released, I was accused of being the incarnation of the late Fred Phelps (infamous for his “God hates fags” protests), as well as branded the leader of my own “religious cult” that “requires human sacrifices.” (I’m not making this up.)

So, by writing a book filled with compassion and speaking of God’s great love for those who identify as LGBT, also urging the Church to recognize the unique struggles faced by those with same-sex attractions, I have become a hate-filled bigot and cult leader.

It’s like calling Shaquille O’Neal small or Bill Gates poor.

At some point reality kicks in – in this case, the moment someone reads the first pages of my book (or the middle pages or the last pages) – and instead of advancing their cause, the anti-Christian activists undermine their own.

In a blog post entitled, “The homophobic rantings of Michael L Brown,” Jay H. wrote, “Fred Phelps is dead. Long live Fred Phelps, apparently. Or rather his new incarnation: Michael L. Brown.”

Unfortunately for Jay H., when people actually read my book, rather than “homophobic rantings,” they find the opposite. As one reader noted, “[Brown] . . . freely uses life testimonies of people who were divinely delivered from homosexuality, and others NOT divinely delivered from homosexuality. This isn’t cherry-picked propaganda here…there are sections in this book that are very sobering for [an] evangelical believer to read.”

And so, readers quickly realize that I am no more the new Fred Phelps than I’m the new Michael Jordan, and the anti-Christian rhetoric exposes itself.

That’s what is happening with my good friends David and Jason Benham, Christian businessmen and committed husbands and fathers.

They were about to be the stars of a new reality show on HGTV that featured them helping hurting families get their dream homes, until a single post on RightWingWatch caused HGTV to pull the plug. (For those unfamiliar with RightWingWatch, the website is a project of Norman Lear’s ultra-liberal People for the American Way. The website references Christian family activist Phyllis Schafly 351 times, conservative political leader Gary Bauer 334 times, President Ronald Reagan 111 times, author Chuck Colson 57 times, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas 37 times, just to give a few examples. You can be sure most all of the references were not flattering.)

Shortly after HGTV announced its decision, a young man on YouTube opined that the Benham brothers were “the textbook definition of a psychopath” and that “they have no feelings, no consideration for other people.”

The problem, of course, is that the moment you get to know David and Jason – or even watch them on a TV interview for a few minutes or see them interacting with their families – you realize that they are not the ones who need help. It’s the young man on YouTube who needs help, and I can guarantee that if they had the opportunity, the Benhams would reach out to him directly to show him the love of God. (When I played part of this YouTube clip for Jason on my radio show, he responded with real compassion and concern.)

But it’s not just some anonymous YouTuber who is spouting such extreme, self-disqualifying anti-Christian rhetoric.

Dan Savage, a leading gay activist (and sex columnist) supported HGTV’s decision, comparing the Benham’s pro-family viewpoints to “white people” who used to “go on TV and say the most racist [expletive] imaginable (argue against legal interracial marriage, argue in favor of segregation) and keep their jobs and be invited back on TV to say that [expletive] a second time.”

Savage facetiously remarked that “hating the [expletive] out of gay people is something all Christians have in common,” titling his blog, “HGTV Cancels Reality Show After Twin Stars Anti-Gay Activism and Rabid Homophobia Exposed.”

What is rabid, however, is not the position of the Benhams. It is Dan Savage’s militant and vicious anti-Christian rhetoric that is rabid, and so, when reasonable, thinking people listen to Savage and to the Benham brothers, it’s easy to see who is filled with hate and who is filled with love.

Eventually, as those who claim to be champions of tolerance and diversity continue their crusade to silence and defame those who differ with them, they will ultimately defeat themselves.

Watch and see.

This article was originally posted at the TownHall.com blog.

It’s hard to think of a more dangerous threat to First Amendment freedoms than the Federal Communications Commission’s scheme a few months ago to station government “researchers” in newsrooms.

It had all the makings of “1984”-style intimidation of journalists, and it was allegedly abandoned shortly after a public outcry.

I say “allegedly” because our betters never give up their quest to dictate to us what is allowable speech.

They wait until they think we’re not paying attention, and try again. A couple of years ago, they floated, but abandoned, the old Fairness Doctrine, which throttled talk radio before the FCC under President Ronald Reagan rescinded it in 1987.

In recent days, an even more hare-brained plan has arisen, courtesy of U.S. Senator Edward J. Markey (D-MA), and U.S. Representative Hakeem Jeffries (D- New York). They’re sponsoring a bill to have federal researchers comb through broadcast radio and television, cable and public-access TV, “commercial mobile services and other electronic media” and, get this – the Internet – for any communications that may have prompted violent acts and “hate crimes.”

Given that our governing elites insist that merely stating that marriage necessarily involves a man and a woman is evidence of “hate,” this is scary stuff.

The bill’s language assures us that the eventual report on all this data will include recommendations “consistent with the First Amendment.”

Remember, this crowd thinks the Constitution is a “living document” constructed primarily of judicial Silly Putty.

The good news is that the Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014, introduced in early April, is not going anywhere in the current Congress – we hope.

Even liberal commentator Alan Colmes has raked it over the coals. Noting that Messrs. Markey and Jeffries tied their companion bills to the deadly shootings on April 13 at a Jewish center in Kansas, Mr. Colmes writes, “no matter how many heinous crimes are committed by deplorable white supremacists, it’s inane to make the case that it’s because [of] something someone said on the radio.”

Besides, there’s more than enough left-wing censorship in the media without the government getting into the act. The Los Angeles Times‘ letters editor, for instance, announced last October that he would no longer run letters from people who deny the existence of man-made climate change.

As with the 1970s prediction of a coming ice age, the science is apparently settled. Well, OK. At least The Times is out and proud with its suppression of skeptics. Thanks for the warning.

Over on Facebook, the censors are hard at work, removing postings that offend liberal sensibilities. This is not to be confused with Mozilla Firefox’s recent forced resignation of CEO Brendan Eich for donating $1,000 six years ago to a campaign for California’s Proposition 8 marriage amendment.

A few days ago, Facebook removed a posting by Fox News and Commentary radio host Todd Starnes that was slyly critical of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

Mr. Bush, a Republican, had said that “many” illegal immigrants came here “because they had no other means to work to be able to provide for their family. Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love.”

Using as a platform the news about armed federal agents seizing the cattle of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy (who has since gotten into scalding hot water over his beyond-insensitive racial remarks), Mr. Starnes wrote:

Rancher Bundy should’ve told the feds that those were Mexican cows – who came across the border illegally to seek better grazing opportunities. It was an act of love.

Well, they didn’t find this amusing in the Facebook guard tower, where they donned their Ministry of Truth helmets and pushed buttons. Presto, the posting was gone, along with thousands of comments. In a column published on the Christian website CharismaNews.com, Mr. Starnes relates what next transpired:

“We removed something your page posted,’ Facebook told me in a rather unpleasant message. ‘We removed the post below because it doesn’t follow the Facebook Community Standards.’

Mr. Starnes continues:

I reached out to Facebook to find out which part of the message violated their standards. Never heard back. I suspect I should’ve used the term illegal-alien cows.

It’s not the first time my postings have been bleeped by the Facebook Purge Police. I’ve been banished, blocked and censored for writing about Chick-fil-A, God, the Bible, Paula Deen, Cracker Barrel rocking chairs, sweet tea, Jesus, the Gaither Vocal Band, the Gideons, the National Rifle Association and June bugs.”\

It’s not possible in one column to chronicle all the ways the political left is suppressing dissent to turn America into a socialist paradise. They want it to be a place where capitalism is a memory, the United States is the military equivalent of Tunisia, everyone is subsistent on the government, three people of any sex can marry, guns are confiscated, Christianity is effectively silenced, Tea Party membership is actionable, and illegal immigrants vote early and often.

It’s up to the rest of us to do what we can to make sure their dream doesn’t become our nightmare.

This article was posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.

I’m a Bible-believing Christian first, a conservative second and, sometimes, with rapidly dwindling frequency, a Republican third (but only when the Grand Old Party is behaving itself).

Although the GOP’s RINO establishment still controls its legislative reins, I’m mildly encouraged by some recent developments at the Republican National Committee (RNC) level. It seems that under the leadership of Chairman Reince Priebus, the party is moving – at least to some degree – back toward its historical conservative platform moorings.

It’s a popular refrain among “moderate” Republicans and libertine libertarians that the GOP “must give up the fight on ‘social issues’” (i.e., gun rights, religious freedom, protecting life and defending legitimate marriage and the natural family).

If the GOP follows through and abandons these transcendent conservative values, it’s done once and for all. The Republican Party had better run, not walk, back toward these conservative platform principles; otherwise Democrats will rule in perpetuity. The “progressive” juggernaut will finish off an America it has already maimed beyond recognition.

As I’ve noted before, Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds what I call “complete conservatism.” The legs symbolize a strong national defense, strong free-market principles and strong traditional social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.

A Republican, for instance, who is conservative on social and national defense issues but liberal on fiscal issues is not a complete conservative. He is a quasi-conservative socialist.

A Republican who is conservative on fiscal and social issues but liberal on national defense issues is not a complete conservative. He is a quasi-conservative dove.

By the same token, a Republican who is conservative on fiscal and national defense issues but liberal on social issue – such as abortion, homosexual activism or the Second Amendment – is not a complete conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.

Karl Rove represents the embodiment of this kind of mushy moderate false pragmatism – a Democrat-lite mindset embraced by the GOP’s socio-liberal establishment. If you run into Karl and his ilk, don’t forget to thank them for President Bob Dole, President John McCain and President Mitt Romney.

Indeed, if the Republican Party ever hopes to occupy the Oval Office again, it’s going to have to nominate a complete conservative and adopt a legislative agenda that reflects the values shared by the tens-of-millions who make up the GOP’s complete conservative base. I don’t mean by simply paying empty lip service either. I mean through unwavering legislative practice.

As Mitt Romney might tell you, if the base ain’t fired up, the base ain’t going to the polls.

In 2012, the GOP approved a platform that, at least in writing, re-established a firm position on – as they say – “guns, ‘gays’ and abortion.” It’s now time for the Republican Party to stand firm atop that platform. As a complete conservative who shudders at the thought of a President Hillary Clinton, I’m cautiously optimistic that some in leadership are beginning to scale the platform once more. The RNC, under Priebus, has recently taken steps that seem to indicate the message of the GOP’s majority base is finally getting through.

For example, the Washington Times recently reported: “In an unprecedented show of opposition to abortion, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is delaying the start of the party’s annual winter meeting so he and other committee members can join the (Jan. 22) March for Life on the Mall. …”

“‘I saw that there was a real interest among a significant portion of our members to attend and support the Rally for Life,’ Mr. Priebus said in an email to the Times. ‘This is a core principle of our party. It was natural for me to support our members and our principles,’” he said.

Moreover, this past Thursday was National Religious Freedom Day. In recent years we’ve seen religious freedom under attack at unprecedented levels through things like the HHS abortion mandate, so-called “gay marriage” and “sexual orientation” laws that target religious business owners. The RNC released the following statement indicating that the GOP intends to defend religious freedom:

“Today we celebrate National Religious Freedom Day and honor the vision of our founders, who ensured every American would have the right to ‘the free exercise’ of his or her faith. As a party, Republicans are committed to preserving and defending the protections enshrined in the First Amendment so that future generations will always enjoy religious freedom in America.”

This move back toward the GOP’s conservative platform has made some socio-liberal Republicans unhappy. In fact, it recently drove homosexual RINO Jimmy LaSalvia, the founder of GOProud, a tiny “gay activist” outfit, to announce that he was defecting from the party.

LaSalvia told Time magazine that, “he could no longer take his own party’s refusal to stand up to bigotry: he was leaving the Republican Party and had registered as an Independent.”

By refusing to “stand up to bigotry,” of course, LaSalvia, like all “gay” activists, means that he can no longer abide the Republican platform’s support for religious freedom and pro-family values.

LaSalvia’s frustration and defection bode well for the Republican Party in general. It means that the GOP is moving slowly – ever so slowly – back toward its conservative roots. This is good news indeed. The more conservative this prodigal GOP becomes; the more successful it will be going forward.

Keep it up, Mr. Priebus, and in November your base just might grill up the fatted calf.

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.

Mark Twain is attributed with having observed “a lie can travel half way around the world before the truth even gets its shoes on.” In this age of instant and round-the-clock media, Twain’s warning is even truer today.

It is interesting to see how some of the biggest cultural issues in America recently have been based upon the lies of liberalism.  For example, the Jane Roe of the Roe v. Wade abortion case was supposedly seeking an abortion after being the victim of a gang rape.  Years later, Norma McCorvey, now a born-again Christian and pro-life advocate, admitted that she was never raped at all. It was an intentional lie meant to advance an agenda that has led to 55 million aborted babies.

In the case of Lawrence v. Texas, which paved the way toward the normalization of homosexuality and the unraveling of marriage, the emotional misnomer was that a police officer looked in the window of a home and saw two males engaged in a sex act, entered the house and arrested them on the spot.  In reality the police were there on a tip about a man with a gun, when they entered the home the clothed men were in two different rooms. Both told officers various lies for differing reasons, and later plead no contest after being coached about making their case into something that could be used by cultural activists.

Although some attempted to point out these facts years ago, the case of Matthew Shephard has reemerged with the publishing of a new book. It is notable in part because it is written by a homosexual (who is now persona non grata with the homosexual demands crowd.)  After interviewing hundreds of people involved in the case, he points out that Shephard was not the victim of a brutal hate crime committed by rednecks because of his homosexuality. 

(Today, a radical gay activist like Dan Savage can insult Christian children with profane, vulgarity-laced speeches in schools to the praise of many. Choose not to make a wedding cake and your business can be shut down based upon your “hate.”)

In reality, the case that launched the nationwide hate crime statute frenzy, which may threaten freedom of speech, was actually a gay on gay crime involving drugs.  Shephard had recently slept with his killer in exchange for methamphetamine.  During that time, one of the murders who had been strung out for five days and owed his dealers money learned that Matthew was part to be a part of a $10,000 drug deal.  He and a friend came back, found Matthew and killed him hoping to get the drugs or money.   The truth was nothing like the hate crime narrative endlessly repeated by the media.

What does it all mean? Perhaps it is just another indictment of causes that are so lacking in righteousness that they need lies to advance them. (As Ronald Reagan once warned, “private values must be at the heart of public policies.”)  Hopefully, it is a reminder that making laws on emotional reactions instead of facts and consideration of the full policy ramifications can have sweeping consequences.  

The controversy over Mitt Romney’s comments about the 47 percent dependent on government coffers continues to heat up, with political pundits stunned that anyone running for president could be so insensitive. 

“There are 47 percent who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it,” Romney told a small group of high dollar donors. 

It’s abhorrent, liberals are saying, that Romney would berate those struggling through tough times while it’s laudable for the President to demand more from the nation’s wealthiest producers. 

This year’s key issue has become the redistribution of wealth – when government intervenes to take from the rich and give to the poor. 

The Holy Scriptures instruct believers to care for the widows and orphans and bring tithes into the storehouse. We are not to be greedy nor selfish with the blessings God has bestowed. 

But when is enough enough? And when does our charity lead to a crippling, unhealthy dependency? 

Illinois must face this urgent moral question because the state’s entitlement programs are on the path to bankruptcy. Illinois led the nation with 1 in 298 units in foreclosure proceedings in August. Our unemployment rate is among the highest and our poverty rate is rising. 

Nationally, there are more looking to the government for assistance than ever before, the Heritage Foundation found in a recent study. Government dependency jumped 3.28 percent in 2011, with the largest increases in higher education loans and grants and in retirement spending. From 2007 to 2011, the rate rose by 31.73 percent. 

There’s no question that everyone’s looking for an upsurge that produces jobs. An economic boost would, we assume, cause the government dependency rolls to shrink and states like Illinois would swing from being welfare providers to being revenue recipients. 

But would an economic recovery and a job boon really fix Illinois’ revenue problem? 

Those that resist discussing social issues this political season will be disappointed that jobs and the economy are only part of the solution. It’s only part because a dramatic rise in unwed births and the accompanying decline in marriage are the biggest cause of child poverty in Illinois, the Heritage Foundation said in a study released last week. 

Heritage ran the numbers for Illinois and found that a staggering 73 percent of all poor families in Illinois are unmarried. Only one-quarter of poor families with children involve married couples. 

Indeed, despite all the attempts to steer around this issue, marriage – yes, marriage – is the one crucial factor as to whether a child grows up dependent on Illinois’ welfare system. Marriage drops the probability of child poverty by 85 percent. 

As Illinois nears economic calamity with its state treasury drowning in red ink, the only way to remedy the situation is to change public policy emphasis. Education reduces poverty, but so does marriage. In fact, Heritage Foundation found, a married family headed by a high school dropout in Illinois is actually less likely to be poor than a non-married family headed by an individual with a few years of college. 

As traditional and old-fashioned as it may sound, the best economic environment for children is a two-parent household. When compared to children in intact married homes, children raised by single parents are more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems; be physically abused; smoke, drink, and use drugs; be aggressive; engage in violent, delinquent, and criminal behavior; have poor school performance; be expelled from school; and drop out of high school. 

Each of those negatives costs the state’s taxpayers more and more over time, not to mention the loss of talent and an overall missing contribution to the community. 

Who would have imagined that Illinois’ public policy and decisions made at the State Capitol could make a difference on its families and its children’s futures in such a obvious manner? It’s not only best for our children, but it’s in the state’s best interests financially, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually to encourage traditional marriage in Illinois. 

It is best for all – even that 47 percent who don’t pay federal taxes – to strive for independence from the state’s mercies. 

As Ronald Reagan said, “The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves. Those who believe we can have no business leading the nation.” 

This election, it’s crucial we choose leaders at state and national levels that recognize the value of traditional marriage, and determine to use that insight to lead us forward once again. With it, we can hope for a more fiscally-sound future. 

Many pro-family leaders are praising the GOP platform for its strong language in a variety of areas. For example, Phyliss Schlafly noted this week in an editorial in the Washington Times that the platform has the successful three-legged stool model that Ronald Reagan won with through strong national defense, economic conservatism and family values. 

One item responsible parents will appreciate is the replacement of language opposing child pornography with a broader call for the enforcement of all laws on obscenity. For years various coalitions have been calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to enforce obscenity laws passed by Congress and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Even when John Aschroft, someone whom I greatly admire, was U.S. Attorney General, his actions on this problem were not much better than that of the Clinton Administration under U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. (Not since Bush 41 has any Justice Department done much other than enforcement of child porn laws, although under the Bush 43 administration an increased emphasis on human trafficking began to appear, which is related to our pornographic culture.)

Placement of this broader call to action into the Republican Party platform may help achieve that much needed enforcement if U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is replaced by a different administration.