Yesterday the Facebook Overlords threw me in the Zuckerland Gulag for 30 days for violating their speech codes by posting this in the comments section of a friend’s Facebook page:

… some tr*nnies are able to create very convincing skin costumes (think “Buck Angel”), and it will be much easier for the next generation of tr*nnies who aren’t permitted to go through puberty to do so. But right now most men aren’t able to pass as women.

My comment was in response to a post about men who deceive others by masquerading as women.

My choice of the terms “tr*nnies” and “skin costumes” was intentional, but the reason for those choices was not to insult. My choices are motivated by a refusal to capitulate to the language rules of the “trans” cult. The left has absorbed the lessons of Saul Alinsky who wrote in Rules for Radicals that “He who controls the language controls the masses.” Many conservatives—far too many—are allowing themselves to be controlled.

There is nothing intrinsically insulting about the term “tranny.” In fact, it has a long history of use by “trans”-cultists. Wikipedia explains the history of the term:

Trans activists like Justin Vivian Bond and Kate Bornstein and drag queens such as Ru Paul and Lady Bunny, have advocated for use of the term. Bond said in 2014 that banning the word does not eliminate transphobia but rather “steal[s] a joyous and hard-won identity from those of us who are and have been perfectly comfortable, if not delighted to be trannies.” At the same time, RuPaul said “I love the word tranny”, and that the word was not being redefined by the transgender community, but only by “fringe people who are looking for story lines to strengthen their identity as victims.” Bornstein said the word was used in the 1960s and 1970s in Sydney, Australia by trans people as “a name for the identity they shared.” … Cristin Williams reviewed historic uses of the term and found the first published instance in 1983, originating among gay men, and expressed doubt that it originated many years prior to this. … In 2017, Facebook’s anti-hate speech algorithms started blocking posts containing tranny.

In order to both enhance their victim status and to erase from the public square any expressions of moral disapproval of cross-sex impersonation, the “trans” cult and its collaborators are attempting to control the language.

They seek to control our language in order to control culture by making it impossible to express ideas they detest. They seek both to ban words and to determine how terms are used. In Transtopia, pronouns no longer correspond to biological sex but to subjective feelings about one’s biological sex. Rather than referring to normal men and women as “men” and “women,” we’re expected to refer to them as “cismen” and “ciswomen.” Women are referred to as “bodies with vaginas” or “persons who menstruate.” And all that leftists need do to win compliance is whine that their feelings are hurt by language they hate, and abracadabra conservatives comply.

The term “transwoman” refers to a man who pretends to be a woman. Since the “trans” cult says “transwomen” are women, how long before they demand that people drop the “trans” from “transwomen”? If they claim their feelings are hurt by the term “transwoman,” if they claim “transwoman” is hateful and discriminatory, will conservatives comply with their Orwellian diktats? Will conservatives refer to cross-dressing men as “women”?

My guess is yes, and the end goal of eradicating all public recognition of sex differences will be that much closer.

It should be noted that Christians view “transphobia” and “homophobia” as insulting, bigoted, ignorant, intolerant pejoratives that make them feel uncomfortable. Does that matter to leftist sexual anarchists? Rhetorical question.

I use the term “skin costume” to accurately describe how chemically and surgically constructed bodily changes function. These so-called “treatments” are designed to conceal the sex of “trans”-cultists, making is easier for them to deceive others, including in private spaces. “Trans”-cultists are, in effect, creating skin costumes.

As we learned from the recent controversy involving Benet Academy, a prestigious Catholic-in-name-only private high school, the disciples of the ongoing sexual revolution not only want to make it impossible for conservative Americans to express their moral views of sexuality but they also want to make it impossible for Christians to train up their children in the way they should go.

Benet Academy rescinded a coaching offer to a woman when they found out she was a lesbian in a faux-marriage—a relationship that obviously violates both Catholic doctrine and Scripture—and then the school crumbled like a stale cookie when apostates and heretics squeezed them.

And public schools, where Christians continue to send their children to be “educated,” now introduce wicked leftist ideas about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation starting in kindergarten. All dissenting ideas are banned because the left has successfully convinced Americans that such ideas make some students feel “unsafe.” Of course, whether they are unsafe or not depends on which moral claims are true.

One cannot rationally argue that moral opposition to homosexual acts and cross-sex impersonation is hateful or destructive unless it can be proven that God does not exist, that his will for humans and plan for history are not revealed in Scripture, or that Scripture is false. And those conclusions fall far outside the purview of public school teachers and politicians.

If God exists and if his perfect will for humans and plan for history are revealed in Scripture, then it is support for the “LGBTQ+” ideology that is destructive. Affirmation and dissemination of the false, socially constructed and imposed “LGBTQ+” ideology will result in not only temporal suffering but also in unimaginable, eternal suffering.

What the “LGBTQ+” community is trying to do with laws that require government schools to teach positively about disordered sexuality, with censorship of dissenting ideas, and with Orwellian language rules is to prevent Christian parents from training up their children in the way they should go. Expect to see increasing assaults on Christian private schools via laws and lawsuits. Next the “LGBTQ+” community will come after the accreditation of Christian colleges—both Catholic and Protestant. And then homeschooling will be in its sights.

Do not capitulate on even seemingly trivial issues. Don’t submit to the manipulative efforts of the “LGBTQ+” community and their collaborators to shame you into using their deceitful language. And don’t send your child to any institution that employs adults who hate or are ashamed of the gospel.  What the left wants is for your children to lose their religion.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Losing-Our-Religion.mp3

While Saul Alinsky can be connected directly to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I’m not aware that such a clear connection exists between the founders of the BLM movement and Alinsky, who died in 1972. But there is no doubt that they share his philosophy of cultural revolution.

In his insightful, 2009 mini-book, Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model, David Horowitz quoted an SDS radical who wrote, “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.”

As Horowitz explained, “In other words the cause – whether inner city blacks or women – is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution. That was the all consuming focus of Alinsky and his radicals.”

When it comes to BLM, the purported issue, namely, that Black Lives Matter, is not the ultimate issue. Instead, a larger cultural revolution is the ultimate issue. (As many have noted, the founders of BLM are both Marxists and radical feminists, with two of the three women identifying as queer activists.)

And so, the mantra that “Black Lives Matter” specifically means blacks who are victims of white police brutality. Black lives in the womb do not matter. Blacks getting gunned down in gang violence do not matter. Black toddlers killed in random shootings do not matter. Not even blacks killed by black police officers matter – at least not nearly as much as blacks killed by white officers.

Those white officers, in turn, represent the larger system, which, we are told, is fundamentally racist. And it is that system that needs to be overthrown.

Thus, “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.”

If the issue was the issue, then BLM should have been applauding President Trump’s efforts to introduce police reform.

Instead, Trump is vilified as a white supremacist and racist, and BLM wants him removed. In fact, that is one of their stated goals.

As for the police, their very existence is part of the oppressive system. They must be defunded and abolished, and attacks on them are justified.

Of course, it doesn’t take a sociology professor to understand that the BLM movement is not primarily focused on the well-being of the black American community.

After all, what is the connection between police brutality and statues of Christopher Columbus?

There is no connection, other than the revolutionary logic which says: white police brutality is part of America’s racist heritage, which started with slavery. And Christopher Columbus, who discovered America, enslaved native inhabitants of the West Indies. Therefore, in the name of BLM, his statue must be destroyed (along with many other statues).

And what is the connection between police brutality and the vandalizing of synagogues and burning of church buildings?

There is no connection, other than the revolutionary logic which sees church buildings as symbols of an oppressive, discriminatory religious system that also must be overthrown.

And let’s not forget the statues of a white Jesus and a white Mary. They too must be toppled.

As for the synagogues, that’s easy. The Jews are always part of the oppressive system. The Jews are always evil. Everyone hates the Jews.

Terry Crewes was right to say to Don Lemon that, “There are some very militant type forces in Black Lives Matter and what I was issuing was a warning” that “extremes can really go far and go wild.”

Absolutely. We see the wild extremes on the streets of our cities every day. And plenty of the extremists are young whites, some of whom are more into revolution than into justice.

Diamond and Silk were right to tweet,

“If What Don Lemon says is true about BLM being only about police brutality, then why are they still protesting?  We don’t see police killing black lives. It’s black lives killing black lives.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by Peter Heck

Get the popcorn ready because they don’t even see it coming — at least most of them don’t.

Gay and lesbian activists, along with their bisexual allies, are about to be clobbered. They’re about to be decked. But not by those enemy evangelicals they have long resented and demonized.

For decades the LGB’s have mastered the Saul Alinsky method in dealing with orthodox Christians and all those holding to traditional morality – “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” The bigot label has been applied to Bible believers with such precision that only a fool would confuse who has won the hearts and minds of the culture on the issue of sexuality.

No, the imminent blindside coming for LGBs won’t be originating from the religious boogeymen they’ve soundly defeated in the courtroom of public opinion. It will be coming from their fellow sexual revolutionaries – the Ts.

It has long been a political axiom that revolutionaries will eventually turn on one another. It’s the nature of a revolutionary after all. There’s always a new cause, a new victim, a new enemy. And while the vanquishing of the Bible bangers and street preachers have brought these wildly divergent sexual lobbies together to unite in a common cause, anyone paying attention can see what’s coming.

Take this video clip from the 2019 gay pride documentary, “Are You Proud?” and listen closely to what the transgender activist says at the very end.

In 2019 documentary about gay pride ‘Are You Proud?’ someone proposes that in future lesbians and gays shouldn’t exist. A far right politician? No, a trans activist. pic.twitter.com/I6866Q6Nv5

— Malcolm Clark (@TwisterFilm) December 10, 2019

If you didn’t get all that, she says (quite presciently and logically I might add):

“It’s quite challenging to LGB people, because if gender is on a spectrum, then homosexuality doesn’t really exist cause it can only exist in a binary. So when it comes down to it, it’s really just two people, or maybe three, or whatever, loving each other. It has nothing to do with sexuality.”

If you listen closely, you can hear the transgender jackhammer busting a gaping hole in the foundation of everything this movement has claimed for the last three decades. The very nature of lesbianism, gayness, and bisexuality rests on the presupposition that there exists a so-called “gender binary.” That is, there are boys and there are girls.

• A lesbian is a female who has romantic and sexual attractions to other females.
• To be a gay man is to be a male who has romantic and sexual attractions to other males.
• Bisexuals are those who are either male or female, but who experience romantic and sexual attractions to both males and females.

Meanwhile, the entire premise of transgenderism is the belief that there is no “male” nor “female.” Instead, all beings exist on a sliding scale of gender identity, which makes any appeal to a male/female gender reality oppressive.

In transgenderism, lesbianism is a ruse because you can’t really be female, and what you’re attracted to can’t really be female either. Ditto that for gayness and bisexuality. They don’t really exist; they can’t exist if transgender theory is to be accepted as viable, legitimate, and true. In other words, as the activist in the video states, “homosexuality doesn’t really exist.”

It’s kind of funny to think that not long ago gay crusaders were standing in solidarity with transgender culture warriors in demanding that society not “erase” trans identity. Seeking to erase lesbian and gay identity is a most peculiar way of saying “thank you,” it would seem.

This article was originally published at Disrn.com.

Here is U.S. News and World Report (yes, it’s still in business) introducing our topic, the Obama Library:

Chicago: Obama Library Infrastructure Could Total $175M

CHICAGO (AP) — Private dollars will pay for building former President Barack Obama’s library, but road and other work near the Chicago site could cost taxpayers.

The city’s transportation department estimates that the cost of widening streets and building at least four new underpasses near the site in Jackson Park may total $175 million.

From the same article (This is embarrassing):

In January, more than 100 University of Chicago faculty members signed a letter urging the Obama Foundation to find a different location for the center.

Blair Kamin and Mary Wisniewski writing in the Chicago Tribune say that some believe costs to the public will run even higher than $175 million:

Margaret Schmid, co-president of the community group Jackson Park Watch, questioned the city’s $175 million estimate, saying the potential cost of the additional pedestrian underpasses would likely boost the total beyond that.

For years I have questioned the need for presidential libraries, and this entire Obama library episode is a perfect example of why.

The word boondoggle fits well:

boon·dog·gle:

noun: work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value.

verb: to waste money or time on unnecessary or questionable projects.

American Thinker’s founder and editor Thomas Lifson has been on the case of the Obama Library since at least 2014. His writings about it has been both entertaining and informative. Here are a few of his early headlines:

Powerful Illinois political boss wants state taxpayers to pony up $100 million for Obama presidential library

Illinois voters don’t want tax money going for Obama library

Report: Obama library to be built in America’s most corrupt major city

Here is what Lifson wrote last October:

Ironic: Obama Presidential Center sparks community opposition in the cradle of community organizing

On the very turf that gave birth to Saul Alinsky’s version of community organizing, community activists are rising in opposition to the impact of building a huge mausoleum-like memorial to Barack Obama. Young Barack Obama relocated to Chicago in order to study at the feet of Saul Alinsky, who had powered the  Woodlawn Organization to historic prominence as a prototype of community organizing.

Members of the Midway Plaisance Advisory Council (MPAC) have been critical of plans, and the feared Friends of the Park has aligned itself “with local causes” related to the Barack Obama Presidential Center.

If Obama thought a Republican-run Congress was difficult to deal with, now he’s up against the Friends of the Park (FOP), a group notorious for their hardcore stances on projects related to Chicago’s lakefront. Here is part of a recent statement from FOP:

Friends of the Parks remains extremely excited about the Obama Presidential Center coming to Chicago’s south side. And we’re glad that our hometown, former president considers equitable investment in Chicago’s parks to be important. We agree with him on that. What we don’t agree on is the appropriateness of long-term disinvestment in parks that culminates in the all-too-common argument that the only way to fix a park is to build a building in it.

. . .

We are saddened by Obama’s dismissiveness toward the many Chicagoans who dare to express opposing views or the need for appropriate vetting and review, not the least of which is the federally-required Section 106/NEPA review. Apparently, he’s been away long enough that he has forgotten how the “City that Works” works. On a daily basis, we Chicagoans suffer the consequences of poor public policy decisions that stem from inadequate long-term planning, transparency, and oversight.

Whaaat? Obama is being accused of “talking down” to people and being dismissive of opposing views?

Wait, there’s more. Again, here’s Lifson:

High-handed Obama Presidential Center is losing community support

[Obama’s] desire to have a monument to himself in the form of the “Obama Presidential Center” (not a library, and not part of the National Archives System) is roiling community organizations who are not convinced that their park should be sacrificed to build a large shrine to the 44th president.

In fact, revisions to the initial plans have not mollified the opposition. Revised plans unveiled made the project even taller and more grandiose (and less white).

It’s no wonder Barack likes to travel overseas where his audiences are less aware of his real legacy and probably less aware of his arrogance and narcissism.

For more information, follow these links:

Black activists shout ‘Shame on you!’ at Chicago aldermen supporting Obama Presidential Center

Plans revised for ‘Obama Presidential Center’: Taller, uglier, and a little bit less white

Obama non-library ‘presidential center’ in Chicago devolving into a fiasco

IFI Worldview Conference May 5th

We have rescheduled our annual Worldview Conference featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet for Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture.

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

Written by William Kilpatrick

In a speech delivered to the Annual MAS-ICNA (Muslim American Society and Islamic Circle of North America) Convention in December 2015, Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), urged Muslim Americans to take up the cause of Black Lives Matter. “Black Lives Matter is our matter,” he said; “Black Lives Matter is our campaign.”

At the same conference, Khalilah Sabra, another activist, told the Muslim audience, “Basically you are the new black people of America… We are the “community that staged a revolution across the world. If we could do that, why can’t we have that revolution in America?” “That revolution” is apparently a reference to the “Arab Spring” revolutions which were inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood and which brought death and destruction to wide swaths of the Middle East and North Africa.

Do CAIR and other activist groups merely want to support Black Lives Matter, or do they hope to recruit blacks to their own cause? In 2014, ISIS used the protests and clashes in Ferguson, Missouri as an opportunity to attempt to recruit blacks to radical Islam. But ISIS is a known terrorist organization while CAIR, despite its shady history, is considered by many to be a moderate, mainstream Muslim organization. Thus, if it wanted to convert blacks, it would presumably want to convert them to a moderate version of Islam.

Or would it? According to Paul Sperry and David Gaubatz, the authors of Muslim Mafia, the supposedly moderate CAIR acts like an underworld cospiracy. In fact, it (along with numerous other prominent Muslim groups) was named by a U.S. court as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist funding case. In addition, CAIR has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates. Moreover, CAIR is a direct outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is also listed as a terrorist group by the UAE, as well as by Egypt and Saudi Arabia. That’s the same Muslim Brotherhood that fomented the “Arab Spring” revolutions, the likes of which Khalilah Sabra wants to bring to America.

The move to bring black Americans into the Islamic fold actually predates CAIR and ISIS by quite a few generations. Black Muslim organizations such as Louis Farrakhan’s The Nation of Islam have been recruiting blacks to their unorthodox brand of Islam for decades. The vast majority of blacks have resisted the temptation to join, perhaps because of NOI’s overt racism, its anti-Semitism, and its criticism of Christianity. In any event, it seems that the Black Muslim movement is being gradually displaced by traditional Sunni Islam. That’s because Sunni Islam has a much better claim to legitimacy—it being a worldwide religion that traces its roots back not to a 1930s Detroit preacher named Wallace Fard Muhammad, but to a seventh century prophet named Muhammad.

Will Islam catch on with black Americans? A great many blacks in America have a strong commitment to Christianity, which serves to act as a buffer against conversion to Islam. Still, it’s likely that Islam will make more inroads into the black community than it has in the past. For one thing, traditional Islam doesn’t have the “kook” factor which keeps most blacks at a distance from The Nation of Islam. The NOI belief system includes giant space ships, an evil scientist who created a race of “white devils,” and, most recently, an embrace of Dianetics.

By contrast, traditional Islam looks much more like … well, like a traditional religion. Indeed, when approaching Christians, Islamic apologists like to play up the similarities between the two religions. Each year around Christmastime, Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s Public Relations Director, sends out a Christmas letter with the message, “We have more in common than you think.”

One of the common elements is Jesus, who is honored as a great prophet in Islam. The self-proclaimed leader of the Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas on July 7, 2016 once wrote of feeling called to follow Jesus into Islam. In November 2015, the Reverend Jeff Hood, a white leftist pastor, wrote:

I have no question that Jesus is so intimately incarnated with and connected to our Muslim friends that he has become one. If we want to walk with Jesus in this moment of extreme oppression and marginalization, we will too.

Islam is an equal-opportunity recruiter. It is open to white leftists and black boxers alike. But Islamic proselytizers may see the present moment as an opportune time to concentrate on blacks. Why is that? Perhaps mainly because our educational system has managed to convince both black and white students that America is a racist society that was built on the back of slavery. Almost all students have been indoctrinated in the narrative that America has a shameful history and heritage. For blacks, however, this version of American history is more plausible because their ancestors actually did suffer from the ravages of slavery and the humiliation of Jim Crow laws.

Nevertheless, during the Civil Rights era and afterwards, both blacks and whites worked hard to heal racial divisions. Racism—both black and white—seemed to be dying a natural death until leftists, with the aid of the media and the Obama administration, managed to resuscitate it. Despite the two-time election of a black president and the appointment or election of black Attorney Generals, black Secretaries of State, black U.S. Supreme Court justices, a black chief of Homeland Security, black mayors, and black police chiefs, a number of blacks seem convinced that white racism is the number one factor that is keeping them down.

Enter CAIR and other Muslim “civil rights” groups that are only too happy to reinforce this narrative. They profess to understand the plight of American blacks because they claim to be victims of a similar oppression—victims of colonialism, racism, and Islamophobia. Part of their pitch is that there is no discrimination in Islam. That might seem a hard sell if you’re familiar with the history of the Arab slave trade or with Islam’s own version of Jim Crow, the dhimmi system. The trouble is, those items have been dropped down the memory hole. The same teachers and textbooks that excoriate the Christian West tend to present Islam as though it were the font of all science and learning.

It might be hoped that blacks who convert will choose some milder form of Islam—something like the Sufi version practiced by Muhammad Ali after he left The Nation of Islam. Unfortunately, that’s not likely because CAIR, ISNA, and similar Islamist groups are practically the only game in town. They have successfully managed to present themselves as the official face of Islam in America, and ISNA, along with the Muslim Brotherhood-linked North American Islamic Trust, controls a majority of the major mosques.

In backing Black Lives Matter, CAIR and company run the risk that their own radicalism will be revealed. Apparently, they don’t consider that to be much of a risk. They know that the court eunuchs in the media will do their best to mainstream Black Lives Matter as a peaceful movement, just as the media has accepted the premise that CAIR itself is a mainstream, moderate organization.

CAIR can also count on President Obama to take the side of Black Lives Matter. Recently, he went so far as to compare it to the Abolitionist Movement against slavery. CAIR is no doubt confident that Obama has its back too. After all, the president made it clear from the start of his administration that he supported the Muslim Brotherhood—the “Mothership” (to borrow an NOI term) out of which CAIR sprang.

At the MSA-ICNA Convention, CAIR and associates felt safe to reveal their revolutionary side. They understand that Obama has a penchant for revolutionary causes—provided that they are leftist (the Castro brothers in Cuba) or Islamist (the “Arab Spring” revolutions) in nature. Before his first election, Obama promised a fundamental transformation of American society. CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are also interested in a fundamental transformation. Indeed, the chief theorists of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, were heavily influenced by Lenin and by communist revolutionary thought. So was Maulana Maududi, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, the Asian equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood. “Islam,” wrote Maududi, “is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals.” He added, “‘Muslim’ is the title of that International Revolutionary Party organized by Islam to carry into effect its revolutionary program.”

That statement has to rank fairly high on the fundamental-transformation scale, and it bears a striking resemblance to the tear-it-down-to-build-it-up leftist school of thought to which Obama belongs. Whether or not the fundamental transformation that Obama desires is the same as that sought by Islamists, he does seem anxious to effect one before his term in office runs out.

The emerging confluence of interests between radical Muslim groups, radical black groups, and a leftist president bent on a radical transformation of America should give us more than pause; it should alarm us. Does Obama intend to speed up the leftward movement of American society during his remaining months in office? Does he hope to accelerate the Islamization of America through a coalition of radical black, leftist, and Islamist groups? Or does he even care what the change is, as long as it’s revolutionary in nature?

Most Americans tend to assume that we are still operating under the same rules that have governed our society since its founding. They have not come to terms with the possibility that some of our leaders are operating under a completely different set of rules—what leftist activist Saul Alinsky called “rules for radicals.”

Read more about Jeff Hood HERE.

Read more about Black Lives Matter HERE.

This article was originally posted at Crisis Magazine.

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, includingPsychological Seduction; Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and the forthcoming The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad.  For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

It was an honest mistake. We’ve all been there. You call the IT department and get nothing but the run-around, right? All you want to do is get back into your Outlook, but no dice. This is the situation in which poor Lois Lerner found herself in 2011. Her computer crashed and she lost gobs of emails. Gone forever—apparently Lois didn’t have Carbonite. And wouldn’t you know it, none of the 67,000 unhelpful emails which the IRS has turned over to congressional investigators were lost! Only the ones which involve Lerner’s efforts to use the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate conservative groups were lost.

The additional wrinkle, which is just being discovered now by the Heritage Foundation and others, is that Lerner is only 1 of 6 IRS colleagues to suffer the exact same technological break-down. The IRS has known about this difficulty since February, but was somehow too busy to mention it until now.

Among those who suffered a technological failure was Nikole Flax; she served as former chief-of-staff to IRS Commissioner Steven Miller. Commissioner Miller was one of the IRS employees fired during the uncovering of the intimidation scandal. A cleverly-filed FOIA request has shown that Flax gave Lerner the approval to get together with DOJ officials, in order to explore criminal charges against conservative groups. The Congressional committee investigating the IRS scandal discovered last week that Lerner sent over 1 million pages of data to the FBI, including confidential taxpayer information. Not only was Lerner discriminating against conservative groups on their applications for tax-exemption, she planned to solicit the help of the Feds to pursue criminal charges against them.

Of course this is just an honest IT mistake, right? I mean, it could have happened to anyone. It’s got to be Murphy’s Law at work since the computers of 6 individuals (all affiliated with the current investigation) were affected. Coupled with the fact that the emails which were irretrievably lost just happened to be those which Congress was hoping to read, it seems pretty cut and dry to me. According to the new Minister of Disinformation, Josh Earnest, the idea that these emails were lost on purpose is “far fetched”. (Incidentally, when did WH Spokesmen begin adopting stage names?? Josh’s is particularly ironic.)

After 6 years of the Obama-ganda machine, a pattern has emerged. It always begins with some sort of scandal which gets uncovered; not by an actual media investigation, but by independent efforts on the part of a citizen journalist or a non-profit organization armed with a crafty FOIA request. The Administration then tries to ignore it for a couple of news cycles. If the story doesn’t go away, they craft an implausible story to explain what happened. The more implausible, the better. At this point, the lapdog media immediately begins peddling this explanation as completely credible; usually taking the opportunity to fill in any perceived gaps in the story which the Administration missed in its initial roll-out. If questions still persist, the questioner is either labeled a lunatic or a racist.

This is orchestrated in textbook Alinski fashion: a crazy explanation becomes the honest answer, an honest inquiry becomes a crazy explanation. George Orwell would have been drooling over such an ironic juxtaposition. The switcheroo works because it trades on the power of Ridicule, one of Alinski’s favorite tools. He discovered that people don’t like to be ridiculed. This is even more true today, when everyone is raised to abhor conflict and even the losing team gets a trophy. The weaker we become, as a society, the more power Alinskian tactics will hold.

Since most people today have a phobia of being ridiculed, they will accept an alternative to ridicule more readily than mockery, even if that alternative is a bald-faced lie. A surprising number of people would rather treat something outlandish as if it were plausible than to be branded a lunatic, even though they stand on a logical foundation. The only way to counteract this technique is to ignore the ridicule. A liar can’t redefine reality if his target refuses to give the redefinition any legitimacy. We have seen them use this game plan during the birth certificate controversy, the Tea Party-Congressional Black Caucus spat on the steps of the Capitol, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the Trayvon Martin case, the Bergdahl Trade, and again with the IRS Scandal.

The fact that we don’t have citizens rioting in the streets is because they have been kept in check by the power of social ridicule…well, that and the militarized thugs in DHS who keep buying ammo by the truckload.

This article was first published at the ClashDaily.com website.

In an unhinged response to Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Greece v. Galloway – which reaffirmed Americans’ First Amendment right to public prayer, to include sectarian prayer – the always entertaining Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has announced its retaliatory “path forward” for Christ-haters.

Saul Alinsky would be proud.

On its website, the Christophobic FFRF, headquarter in Madison, Wisconsin, posted a member essay calling the High Court’s decision, “disastrous for state-church separation,” and frantically warned, “This decision could be the equivalent of Dred Scott or Plessy for our [anti-Christian] cause.”

The Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson decisions, of course, upheld slavery and racial segregation respectively. This is richly Ironic considering that groups like the FFRF, the ACLU, People for the American Way and others, are simply anti-Christian segregationist organizations that exist for the sole purpose of segregating Christians and Christianity from any public forum.

“In light of yesterday’s dreadful ruling, we, and all activists, will have to fight harder and smarter,” declared the screed. “We will need to lodge more complaints, write more letters, conduct more protests, and bring more lawsuits. No matter how long it takes, Greece v. Galloway must be overturned.”

The essay brazenly called for “mockery” of God, summoning atheists to infiltrate any public forum that might open in prayer, and to then “voice disapproval…by booing, making thumbs down gestures, blowing a raspberry, or by making other audible sounds signifying disapproval. …”

“Citizens may also abruptly walk out of government proceedings and then make an auspicious re-entry as soon as the prayer has ended,” suggested the group.

The stated goal? “Public mockery and ridicule” of Jesus Christ and all Christians.

The FFRF post concluded:

If after the above actions have been taken, the government continues to insult atheists and/or religious minorities with sectarian prayers, activists may turn to public mockery and ridicule. One example is the “prayer mockery hat.” Activist can easily make a brightly colored hat with large ear muffs and dark sunglasses. Wording on the cap could say: “I OBJECT TO PRAYER!” Then, as soon as the pastor or chaplain has been introduced, activists can put on their “prayer mockery hat” with exaggeration and then remain seated throughout the prayer, completely ignoring the pastor until finished. Activists can also mount a small GoPro-style camera to their cap to record the response for posting on Facebook or Youtube.com.

In spite of the disastrous ruling, the fight is not over. We must not submit to this subjugation of our constitutional right to be free FROM unwanted religious intrusion by government. Indeed, “Nothing Fails Like Prayer,” so let us use reason and our constitutional rights of free speech, free association, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances to our full advantage.

Still think there’s no left-wing war on Christianity?

Think again.

The second Defend Marriage Lobby Day of the year is less than two weeks away on Wednesday, October 23rd in Springfield.

Whether you’re able to come or not, we need you to contact your state legislator today.  If you are able to join us in Springfield, please let your legislators know that you’re coming and look forward to speaking with them about protecting marriage in Illinois.  If you’re unable to come, please send your legislator a message to protect marriage by clicking HERE.  Tell them that you wish you could attend and ask them to protect marriage. 

Your attendance could very well lead to the defeat of same-sex “marriage” this year.  Our adversaries have only six days this fall to accomplish their radical goals: October 22-24 and November 5-7.  We are holding our Defend Marriage Lobby Day on the second day of the veto session.

While it would not be prudent to publicize all of the information about the vote count on SB 10, I can say that I am encouraged.  A large turnout on October 23rd will make a huge difference and could derail the opposition’s efforts.  (Find a bus ride HERE).

Your efforts are already making a difference.  Stephanie Trussell of WLS radio interviewed me on Sunday afternoon.  Stephanie saw a bumper sticker on a supporter’s car and googled “Defend Marriage Lobby Day.”  This led to the phone call, and an opportunity to get the word out to tens of thousands of listeners.  Then yesterday afternoon, Joe Walsh from WIND radio had me on his program to help us get the word out.  

Thank you for your faithfulness and courage in standing for the truth. Keep getting the message out!

I am so excited to see how our grassroots efforts are making a difference.  You made it possible for us to sell out the IFI Fall Banquet that we held recently with Dr. Benjamin Carson.  Over 1,100 Illinoisans turned out to show their support for Christian values.  This event reminded me that, despite what media pundits want us to believe, protecting life, family, and freedom is a value shared by many, many citizens.

The Illinois Review published a comprehensive news story on the event.  They wrote:

Dr. Carson subtly compared what is happening in the White House to the teachings of Chicago native, Saul Alinsky, whose Rules for Radicals published in 1971 served as impassioned counsel to young radicals on how to effect constructive social change.  Never mentioned by name, but implied, was how the President had been schooled in Alinsky’s rules as a community activist in Chicago.  Prevalent among Alinsky’s rules being applied by the White House through its actions and policies: 1) if you push a negative hard enough it will gain traction and become a positive and 2) driving a wedge between people or groups of people will create class warfare and with it division and unrest.

The push for same-sex “marriage” is meant to divide people, and it is, of course, a negative.  Secular progressives know that if they push this negative hard enough it will eventually appear to be a positive.  They hate the God of Christianity and the Bible.

We must resist this scheme.  As Christians, it is our duty.  For the sake of our children and grandchildren, let’s make sure marriage revisionists go no further in advancing their effort to pervert the legal definition of marriage.  

You can help right now by contacting your legislator:

Take ACTION:  Send an email or fax to your state representative today.  Ask him/her to stand firmly and courageously against SB 10, and warn him/her not to be persuaded by the emotionally manipulative and intellectually hollow rhetoric of the homosexual lobby.

Saul Alinsky is alive and well in the political maneuverings of the secular left. The problem is; we all have the play book now.

As most know, Rush Limbaugh has been under fire of late for comments he made about 30 year-old “reproductive justice” radical Sandra Fluke. Ms. Fluke recently gained national attention while testifying before Congress. There, she demanded that Georgetown Law, a Jesuit University, underwrite her stated fornication practices by paying for her and other students’ birth control and, ostensibly, abortions. Fornication and abortion, of course, are considered “mortal sins” in Christianity. Catholic doctrine further bars the church from providing contraception.

Rush said of Fluke: “[T]hey’re talking about, like this left-wing sl-t, what’s her name? Sandra Fluke?”

Not really. Actually that bile came from the revolving pie-hole of MSNBC’s Ed Schultz in reference to conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham. Ms. Fluke recently went on Schultz’s program to criticize Limbaugh for indirectly suggesting that, in light of her admitted sexually immoral lifestyle, she was a “sl-t” (an offensive and inappropriate slang for which he has apologized).

During the interview Ms. Fluke somehow failed to mention Schultz’s identical insult of Ingraham. (An inadvertent oversight, I’m sure.)   

And speaking of double standards: the media has made much fanfare about a staged phone call from President Obama to Ms. Fluke to “ask how she was holding up.” (No call yet to the similarly aggrieved Laura Ingraham.)

Additionally, Obama has refused to return – or even answer questions about – a one million-dollar donation from serial misogynist Bill Maher who, among other things, has called Sarah Palin far worse.

Mainstream media-types have no interest in this double standard because they share it. They’re duty-bound to ignore the palpable hypocrisy. To do otherwise would undermine the absurd “GOP-has-declared-war-on-women” narrative. (By ‘women,’ of course, they mean liberal women – outnumbered by Rush-supporting conservative gals two-to-one).     

Indeed, Limbaugh has become the left’s flashpoint in this twofold election year ploy to both sour women against the GOP and distract from Obama’s impending debt bomb, skyrocketing gasoline prices and the threat of a nuclear Iran.

David Burge of the Iowa Hawk blog summed it up nicely in a tweet: “How can you monsters talk about a $15 trillion debt at a time like this, when a brave coed has hurt lady-feelings?”

Yes, how can we focus on trillions in Obama debt, $6.00 gasoline and Islamo-fascists with nukes while a Georgetown “coed” is being denied free medication from Christians for her “Saturday night fever”?

Well, I have it on good authority that today Rush is chewing a big fat Padron Toro and laughing himself silly. Every time McCarthyite liberals take a swing at El Rushbo, they get their hemp-clad heinies handed to them. It’s like watching Andre the Giant toss midgets.

On Wednesday, Rush announced on his show that the “progressive” machine’s latest effort to bring him down via a sponsorship boycott was failing fantastically. Following the DNC-manufactured Fluke dust-up, Rush revealed that he has suffered zero revenue loss (even making gains); that he has a wait list of new advertisers lining up, and that some of his former sponsors – who hastily bowed to leftist pressure and dropped him – are now “practically begging to come back.”   

This comes as little surprise. One such sponsor, Carbonite, saw its stock plummet by twelve percent overnight after announcing it was pulling its spots. This is what happens when a company puts partisan politics over profit.

Limbaugh – rated number one in talk radio – has tens-of-millions of loyal, activist listeners who love to spend tons of cash on the products Rush plugs. (Wonder how long before Carbonite CEO and MoveOn.org supporter David Friend “steps down” to “spend more time with his family”?)    

Still, liberal attempts to sidetrack aside, the cultural issues embedded within this Fluke flap are worthy of discussion. Only a dying culture lionizes a woman who publicly impugns – with pride – her own honor and virtue. Yet, to the left, she’s a hero.

It’s genuinely sad that, as a society, we are no longer appalled that a young, single woman – though very nice, I’m sure – would go on national television nonetheless, to proudly and publicly boast that, to her, while sex is cheap and casual, dealing with the potential consequences is so expensive that those of us who disagree must subsidize her bad behavior.

Can someone please explain to me how and why a woman’s “right” to be promiscuous is my financial responsibility? If you refuse to buy your own “preventative medicine,” why not hit up the fellas? Last I heard it takes two to do the fornication Fandango.

This is by design. Secular-“progressives” have been working to deconstruct traditional sexual morality for generations. The goal is to impose – under penalty of law – their own moral relativist, sexual anarchist worldview. (Hence, the unconstitutional ObamaCare mandate requiring that Christian groups cast aside millennia-old church doctrine, and get with the postmodern program.)  

But, beyond this assault on religious freedom and the moral implications surrounding the debate, Ms. Fluke has additionally set the true women’s movement back decades. Her public groveling for free contraception and abortifacients reinforces the sexist stereotype that single women can’t survive without welfare. Women’s empowerment? More like patriarchal government dependency.

Still, like so much in its propagandist bag of tricks, the left’s entire “denied access to contraception” premise is built upon a lie. Liberals would have you believe that, for decades, women seeking birth control – already cheap and often free – have been systemically tackled in front of Walgreens by a bevy of white, Republican Catholic Priests.

Name one woman who has been “denied access” to birth control – ever. Show me one Republican politico who wants to “ban contraception.”

There are none.

Birth control at Walgreens? A few dollars. Taking personal responsibility for your own lifestyle choices and consequences? Priceless.

That’s all Rush was saying.