By now many have heard that the high-end fashion company Balenciaga was forced by public pressure to pull and apologize for its recent ad campaign featuring preschool children holding teddy bears wearing what looks to average Americans like bondage paraphernalia. In one photo, a child is holding bondage teddy while standing on a sofa in front of which is a coffee table filled with champagne flutes. In the next photo that same child is lying down on the white sofa with her (or his) head on a pink shag pillow. In another photo, a little girl holding another strapped-up teddy is standing on a little girl’s bed.

In a fourth photo, the set designer added a sheaf of papers under a Balenciaga purse. The oh-so-clever choice for the top paper is a court document that refers to a case that overturned a law banning child porn. Does anyone believe that was an accident?

Then in a fifth photo that has received less public scrutiny, a red-haired woman sits in a chair with her feet up on a desk. On the desk corner, hiding in plain sight is a stack of books on top of which sits a controversial book by Belgian artist Michaël Borremans titled Fire from the Sun. While the meaning of Borremans’ collection remains unclear, the grotesque nature of the photos of naked toddlers variously covered in blood or aflame and cannibalizing adults is obvious.

Of all the books, in all the towns, in all the world, this book makes the Balenciaga ad campaign?

And finally, there’s the photo of a little boy near whose feet lays a roll of bright yellow tape on which can be seen the word “Balenciaga” misspelled as “baalenciaga.” A typo? Or an intentional reference to Baal, the god to whom children were sacrificed.

We’re cascading down that slippery slope at warp speed—you know, the slippery slope the warped claim does not exist.

Once in a while, the boundary-free libertines among us get ahead of their skies just a bit and are forced to slow down: “Give the rubes, deplorables, and right-wing Christian extremists a few minutes to absorb cross-dressing men gyrating in front of toddlers before you confront them with images of children with bondage paraphernalia. In due time, my pretties, in due time.”

For more on the story, here’s Tucker Carlson’s analysis:

Are today’s journalists and news outlets doing their jobs well? According to  journalists themselves, yes. According to the public, no.

A recent survey from the Pew Research Group highlighted the significant disconnect between those who write the news and the rest of us who read them. One of the most interesting findings of the survey was the relative satisfaction of journalists within their industry versus the relative dissatisfaction of those who consume their work. Sixty-five percent of journalists said they believe that news outlets “report the news accurately,” while a mere 22 percent of the public expressed satisfaction with the accuracy of news reporting.

Pew’s survey also queried journalists about their concerns for the future of press freedom. While 42 percent of journalists age 65 and up said they were “extremely concerned” about the trajectory of press freedom in the industry, a scant 20 percent of journalists age 18-29 registered the same level of concern. In other words, the unabashed censorship, the sloppy reporting, and the revisionist history that plagues our nation’s news outlets hardly concerns the next generation of journalists and reporters.

Despite the apparent disconnect between journalists’ perception of their own industry and the American public’s perception of the same, the survey revealed one interesting point on which the two perspectives were more closely aligned: how much the American public trusts their news outlets. Journalists estimated that 14 percent of the American public “has a great deal of trust in the information they get from news sources.” Similarly, only 29 percent of U.S. adults (non-journalists) said that they trust the information they get from news sources.

It’s apparent there is a crisis in journalism and the news industry, but what is causing it? One possible answer is that the American public has clearly seen through the thin veneer of respectability that once accompanied the news industry. The United States has a rich journalistic tradition: the 1st Amendment has accorded the free press an incredible degree of influence over the politics, culture, and trajectory of American society, and for many decades in our history, the press stewarded that privilege with dignity and wisdom. But the brakes have seemingly come off of journalism—there seems to be no limit to the degeneracy that the U.S.’s thought-leaders will publish and promote.  The average American citizen likely isn’t on board with drag shows for kids, for instance, so when their once-trusted news outlets begin to celebrate the depths of human depravity, they (wisely) look to alternative news sources.

One obvious example of this is the decline of CNN. Once a respected staple of American news reporting, CNN’s ratings are now at a seven-year low. Anderson Cooper, a face long associated with CNN, only averages a paltry 600,000 viewers during the 8:00 p.m. time slot; Tucker Carlson averages an astounding 3 million viewers on Fox News.

Doubtless, another cause of journalism’s crisis in public perception is the changing landscape faced by the industry. No longer are people only consuming news curated by large news outlets (New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Fox News). More and more, people are turning to non-traditional sources for their news. Especially for younger generations, podcasts, online blogs, Substack newsletters, and small independent news outlets have become the primary means of keeping up with current events. And for good reason—smaller news sources are less directly affected by public and government pressure and are often willing to report on unpopular (some would say intolerant or hateful) issues.

The dissemination of news via smaller outlets is a wonderful advantage—especially for Christians. No longer do Christians and conservatives need to rely on dishonest long-time news sources to stay informed about current events. Everyone is able to curate their own newsfeed so they can hear from fair, balanced sources without the fear of being ambushed by the woke nonsense we’ve grown accustomed to from mainstream news outlets.

Of course, this poses a challenge as well. How do we go about evaluating the sources we regularly read and listen to? Fortunately, there’s an easy answer to that question: every Christian has a responsibility to evaluate the information they take in by the unchanging standard of God’s Word. This is, of course, difficult at times, which is why it is of the utmost necessity that each and every one  of us finds a community of believers that shapes our worldview only according to God’s Word.

The crisis along the U.S.-Mexican  border continues with little effort from the Biden administration to stop the flood. In September, Del Rio, Texas, was nearly overrun when 30,000 illegal immigrants poured over the border into the town. This action meant illegal immigrants almost outnumbered actual citizens and, as a result, Del Rio’s public areas and living conditions deteriorated noticeably.

In 2021, approximately 1.7 million illegal immigrants have been arrested along our border. However, our federal government has done little to pro-actively intervene or address the primary issues that cause immigrants to leave their country. President Joe Biden met with Mexico’s President André Manuel López Obrador on November 18th. The two only briefly discussed the border. Obrador has stated that the U.S. should grant amnesty to the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and did not promise any help in stemming the tide of illegal crossings.

While the problems incurred along the border are overwhelming, the individuals coming here are far too often the victims. According to Pew Research, we have seen the highest levels of illegal crossings this year compared to the last several decades. However, despite the high level of crossings, the number of individuals crossing is down. This decrease is because an estimated 27% of individuals make multiple crossings across the border. One explanation for multiple crossings is that some illegal immigrants are caught, returned to their country of their origin, and then make other attempts to cross. Another explanation is that coyotes, the colloquial term for smugglers, are going back and forth smuggling victims of human trafficking across the border.

Kevin Lilly, Chairman of the Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission, has closely followed the tragedy of human trafficking at the border. In an interview with Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson, Lilly claimed that 60% of Latin American children crossing the US-Mexican border are victims of trafficking. Approximately 80,000 children are currently being trafficked in the state of Texas alone. The crisis along the border is further facilitating and funding the $200 billion industry of human trafficking.

President Biden’s response to the border crisis and human trafficking has been a complete debacle. The administration’s policy requires U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to release families and unaccompanied minors 72 hours after being detained. Agents then serve them a notice to report to court for a hearing. Most immigrants do not comply with the notice to return, and minors and vulnerable adults are often quickly sold to traffickers.

The lack of intervention by the Biden administration means officials in border states are left on their own to manage the immigrant problem. Governor Greg Abbott (R-Texas) declared disaster areas in 47 Texas counties and deployed the National Guard to assist with border patrol and with the growing humanitarian crisis. Texas will likely see even more problems as a caravan of 2,000 migrants are currently making their way from Central American and Haiti to the US-Mexican border.

Recently, after discovering that the federal government was secretly flying illegal immigrants to Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis (R) stated, “If they’re going to come here, we’ll provide buses. I will send them to Delaware and do that. If he’s [Biden] not going to support the border being secured, then he should be able to have everyone there.” DeSantis has also filed suit against the Biden administration for continuing the catch and release program.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also responded to the problem with the introduction of S. 3002, the Stop the Surge Act of 2021. The Committee on the Judiciary is reviewing the act which was introduced to Congress on October 19th. This bill would establish twelve new ports of entry that Homeland Security would maintain. Any illegal immigrant detained at our border would be sent to one of the twelve ports and processed to determine if they were qualified for entry or deportation. Additionally, the act would eliminate temporary asylum and the catch and release program. As proposed by U.S. Senator Cruz, the bill would help tighten border control and perhaps prevent traffickers from using the open border to victimize vulnerable children and adults.

To stop the inhumane treatment of illegal immigrants and the human trafficking at our borders, we must stop the influx of migrants. This crisis will only end if we tighten border control and make it clear to all individuals that there is an established, legal process for immigrating to our country. The federal government should not automatically grant amnesty if they are serious about stopping the tide of migrants breaching our border. If you believe the border crisis is a humanitarian disaster, do not hesitate to get in touch with your Congressional representatives and demand that the Stop the Surge Act 2021 be moved to the U.S. Senate floor for a vote.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth plus your own U.S. Representatives and voice your concerns regarding the border crisis and express your support for S. 3002, the Stop the Surge Act.

Ask them to secure our national borders! You can also call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to speak to your federal lawmaker by name. If the staff doesn’t pick up, be sure to leave your name, phone number, and your message that you want S. 3002 passed, the border secure, women and children protected and the border wall finished immediately. Please ask your friends to do the same!

More ACTION: If you suspect someone you know is a victim of human trafficking, whether an immigrant or a legal citizen, don’t hesitate to call the National Human Trafficking Resource Center hotline at: (888) 373-7888.

Learn MORE:

[VIDEO] Texas mother, daughter killed as human smuggler crashes into them (Tucker Carlson)

We learned this week that the love of money is the root of all evil. Well, we learned that in Scripture. This week purportedly conservative Christian governor of Arkansas Asa Hutchinson just reminded us of it when he sold out children to corporate interests.

For those still basking blithely in the afterglow of America’s once shining light or are socially distancing under a rock, the Arkansas legislature sent a bill to Hutchinson that would 1. prohibit doctors from the risky and experimental use of puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones—some of the effects of which are permanent—for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors, 2. prohibit surgeons from performing mutilating, irreversible cosmetic procedures on minors. and 3. prohibit the use of public funds, including Medicaid, for any of those barbaric, snake oil “treatments.”

The purportedly conservative, purportedly Christian Hutchinson vetoed this commonsense bill to protect children from procedures that are devastating young healthy bodies.

Hutchinson might reflect for a moment on who exactly is cheering his decision. Hint: It’s not conservatives. Oh, no, it’s the “trans”-cult; the “entertainment” industry; the medical industrial complex; the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party (i.e., CNN, NBC, MSNBC, NYTimes, and Washington Post); soulless corporate America; BLM; the ACLU; and the Human Rights Campaign.

Word to Hutchinson: If all the good guys are criticizing you and all the bad guys are cheering you, maybe you made a disastrous decision.

On Tucker Carlson’s Fox News program, Hutchinson defended his decision by appealing to conservative small government commitments—the last refuge of conservative scoundrels who want to embrace “progressive” positions on “social issues.” He also said, the bill “goes too far” because it would stop minors who are already being experimented on from continuing with dangerous “treatments” to conceal their biological sex.

Of course, small or limited government doesn’t mean no government. Nor does it mean abandoning children to the “trans”-cult and the godless profiteers who line their pockets with the lucre gained by chemically sterilizing children and lopping off parts of their sexual anatomy.

Many people, stunned by Hutchinson’s decision and not duped by his small government rationalization, look to corporate pressure as the real reason for Hutchinson’s alignment with the dark side.

In March Hutchinson appeared on another Fox News show and was asked about corporate “pushback” against legislation that promotes sexual sanity. Hutchinson responded,

We’re the home of some major global corporations here in Arkansas, they’re certainly worried about the image of our state.

Immediately after Hutchinson’s veto, left-leaning Tom Walton, whose family owns Walmart, issued this public pat-on-the-back to Hutchinson:

We are alarmed by the string of policy targeting LGBTQ people in Arkansas. This trend is harmful and sends the wrong message to those willing to invest in or visit our state. We support Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s recent veto of discriminatory policy and implore government, business and community leaders to consider the impact of existing and future policy that limits basic freedoms and does not promote inclusiveness in our communities and economy.

Our Founding Fathers would be surprised to learn that our “basic freedoms” include the freedom of children to stop puberty, take cross-sex hormones, and have healthy body parts cut off.

According to the Institute of Southern Studies,

Steuart Walton has been a generous donor to the Arkansas Republican Party as well as to Hutchinson’s campaign.

And Tucker Carlson reported that he “spoke with a source” who said that when the term-limited Hutchinson leaves office in 2022, “he would very much like a board seat” at Walmart.

There are some curious omissions in Hutchinson’s public statements on Fox News about the bill he vetoed.

For example, Hutchinson pointed to the depression and high rates of suicide among gender dysphoric minors. He implied that depression arises from gender dysphoria and can be alleviated by cross-sex hormone-doping. He didn’t seem to know that both depression and gender dysphoria could be symptoms of some other underlying problem. And he didn’t address studies showing that cross-sex hormone-doping can increase suicidal ideation or that suicidal ideation increases after “gender confirmation” butchery.

Hutchinson didn’t address the shocking increase in the number of adolescent girls now identifying as boys. Before the “trans”-cult stopped its slow titration of their ideological poison into the body politic, gender dysphoria affected a minuscule portion of the population and affected mostly boys, beginning between the ages of 3-5. Upwards of 80 percent of those boys eventually desisted from identifying as girls.

Now with the secular world promoting opposite-sex impersonation, particularly via social media, there is an explosion in the number of adolescent girls and young women suddenly identifying as male. As psychologists and sociologists know, girls are much more vulnerable to social contagions, like anorexia, bulimia, cutting, and now cross-sex identification.

Hutchinson didn’t mention the politicization of the professional medical and mental health communities. For example, while “trans”-cultists and their ideological allies like to tout the American Academy of Pediatrics’ endorsement of the medical “transing” of children, they don’t like to mention that the pro-“transing” policy was created and voted on by fewer than 50 members of the now-67,000-member academy.

Hutchinson didn’t mention the increasing number of young women who “detransition” and deeply regret having taken testosterone and/or having had their healthy breasts cut off. These young women with permanently male voices and scarred chests that will never nurse a baby feel betrayed by the medical and mental health communities.

Hutchinson didn’t talk about the health risks from the experimental use of puberty blockers and hormones never tested for long-term cross-sex use, risks that include infertility; liver dysfunction; coronary artery disease; cancer; strokes; osteoporosis; and the development of gallstones, blood clots, hypertension, and pituitary gland tumors.

Hutchinson never talked about the ethics of turning healthy children into lifelong medical patients (You know who likes that? Endocrinologists and pharmaceutical companies, that’s who).

Someone should ask Hutchinson whether his limited government principles would lead him to oppose bans on limb amputations for those with Body Integrity Identity Disorder—a condition in which the sufferer experiences a mismatch between his bodily wholeness and his internal sense of himself as an amputee.

And what about Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), which was banned by the Stop FGM Act of 2020 and signed into law by former President Donald Trump? Would small government Hutchinson oppose a ban on the excision of female genitalia from a 14-year-old girl who, for religious or cultural reasons, wants her genitalia mutilated?

While leftists, practiced at the art of deception and the skill of Newspeak, describe the slicing off of female genitalia as “mutilation,” they describe the slicing off of breasts as “gender affirmation care.”

Since girls as young as 13 are having double mastectomies, a 2015 article by Derrick Diaz and published in the DePaul University Journal of Healthcare Law about cosmetic surgery for minors may offer some helpful insights:

Minors should not have access to cosmetic surgery unless found by a court to be medically necessary. … [I]f medical necessity has not been shown, then the service should be prohibited the same as any regulated service or product prohibited to minors.

…

[A] medical necessity determination can be made through a four-pronged analysis. First, does the impairment hinder a minor’s normal physical function; and, is the proposed surgery intended to treat a present or future clinically verifiable disease, deformity, or injury? Second, is the physical anomaly (1) objectively tangible, and (2) unusual or relatively common? Third, what is the state of the minor applicant’s psychological health? Fourth, would a reasonable minor in the applicant’s position be hindered from normal functioning by the condition (e.g., avoiding normal childhood/adolescent activities)?

…

[R]egardless of whether continued [legislative] noninterference is sound policy generally speaking, it is absolutely not so with regard to minors, as states have statutory mandates to protect their health and welfare. When it comes to cosmetic surgery on minors, states must have an intervening hand in preventing the potentially harmful effects of caveat emptor.

“Trans”-cultists and their allies try to get around this position by arguing that amputating the healthy, natural breasts of gender-dysphoric minor girls is “medically necessary.” But it’s not, and leftists have no conclusive, researched-based proof that it is.

On March 30, just days before his surprising veto, Hutchinson met with two “trans”-cultists—both men who pretend to be women, including “Evelyn” Rios Stafford, a justice of the peace in Arkansas, who pleaded with Hutchinson to veto the bill.

Did Hutchinson talk to any parents of teen daughters who suddenly started identifying as boys?

Did he talk to any young “detransitioned” women who grieve over their damaged bodies and the betrayal of adults who didn’t stop them?

Did he talk to any of the members of the American College of Pediatricians who oppose experimentation on the healthy bodies of children?

Did he consult with Abigail Shrier, the Wall Street Journal writer who wrote the book Irreversible Damage about the harm being done to adolescent girls?

Has he read any of the articles by historically leftist Jennifer Bilek who has been exposing the “money behind the rapidly growing juggernaut of transgenderism in American culture and beyond,” which she argues, “all leads back to the pharmaceutical and tech giants that now interface with LGBT NGOs which are driving the normalization of a biology-denying ideology.”

There is some good news emerging from Arkansas. The Arkansas legislature overrode Hutchinson’s unconscionable veto.

If Hutchinson’s relationship with God and truth are his first priorities—which they should be—then he should publicly confess his sinful decision and repent. Something tells me, however, that confession and repentance aren’t on his agenda.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Gov. Hutchinson via his official webpage. You can also call the governor’s office during normal business hours to give him and his administration feedback: (501) 682-2345

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Asa-Hutchinson-Sells-Out-Gender-Dysphoric-Children.mp3

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!

Because the “Equality” Act will erase the category of human formerly known as “women,” it has managed to do the seemingly impossible. It has united conservatives and liberals. While Democrat supporters of the Equality Act, including President Biden, have exacerbated political division, conservatives, feminists, and homosexuals are uniting to defeat this bill, which they recognize as a threat to girls and women.

Earlier this week Tucker Carlson interviewed feminist attorney Kara Dansky, chair of the Committee on Law and Legislation for the Women’s Human Rights Campaign, board member of the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF), and former senior counsel with the ACLU on the Equality Act. She rightly describes the increasing erasure of women as an “emergency” with many unforeseen consequences that will affect the “rights, privacy, and safety of women and girls.” She warns that the Equality Act, which will “redefine the word ‘sex” to include the nebulous, ill-defined, un-understood, made-up lie that is “gender-identity,” makes a national conversation about these serious consequences imperative.

IFI recommends taking 4 ½ minutes to watch and/or listen to this video interview with Ms. Dansky.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.”

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

Written by Lathan Watts

When those entrusted with power to protect the God given rights of the people do so selectively, arbitrarily picking and choosing which freedoms are worthy of protection and to what extent, then we are no longer a nation governed by the rule of law but by the whims of men.

President Abraham Lincoln once observed,

“Nearly all men can stand the test of adversity, but if you really want to test a man’s character give him power.”

America now faces of a convergence of calamities unlike any our nation has dealt with in nearly a century. Amidst the confusion, what has become clear is the character of those in power is being tested and some are found as lacking in character as in their understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

From the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic we heard government officials at every level repeat some version of the mantra “the first priority of government is protecting the health and safety of the citizens.” The first priority, in fact the justification for the existence of government, is to protect the God-given rights of the people.

For example, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy when asked by Fox News host Tucker Carlson how he could justify the arrest of 15 men attending the funeral of a Rabbi replied,

“That’s above my paygrade Tucker, I wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this…”

Of course, government is charged with protecting the health and safety of the citizens but it must be done, as all government action, within the parameters of the Constitution. First Liberty Institute and our volunteer attorney network have taken elected officials to court all over the country to hold them to this standard.

What has also become clear is how some in government and the media are willing to demand constitutional protections be enforced or abandoned depending on the subject matter. When business owners peacefully assembled to protest against the government imposed lockdown they were called everything from “selfish” to “domestic terrorists” and accused of valuing money over the lives of others.

When protests over the death of George Floyd broke out in cities across the country, no such concern over public health could be heard. It was exactly the opposite response. Over 1000 public health professionals signed on to a letter specifically calling for governments not to use concern over the spread of COVID 19 to stop protest marches and other demonstrations:

“However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from demonstrators’ ability to gather and demand change. This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders.” (emphasis added)

The last sentence of that letter means either the virus can distinguish between protestors based on the issue they’re protesting or these public health officials care more about virtue signaling and adherence to political ideology than the public health.

Any American with a modicum of morality and respect for justice in a civil society was appalled at what happened to George Floyd. That same sense of morality and respect for justice is what causes many to recoil at the sight of violent arsonists and thieves masquerading as protestors attempting to cloak their crimes in lawful activity.

Yet CNN anchor Chris Cuomo saw no conflict between the two,

“Now too many see the protests as the problem. No, the problem is what forced your fellow citizens to take to the streets: persistent, poisonous inequities and injustice, and please, show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful…”

One hopes someone showed him the text of the First Amendment which protects the “right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The beauty of the First Amendment is in its protection of all religion, speech, press, peaceful assemblies equally, without any regard to the popularity of the ideas. If our republic is to survive we must hold ourselves and those we entrust with power to the same principled standard.

This article was originally published at FirstLiberty.org.

Written by Peter Heck

Until I saw a brilliant interpretation and explanation of it a few years ago, I was always confused by this Biblical proverb:

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.” (Proverbs 26:4-5)

On the surface, obedience to those principles seem contradictory – I’m not to answer a fool according to the folly on the one hand, but I am to answer a fool according to his folly on the other. So, which is it?

In order to give them the credit they deserve, I truly wish I could remember whose commentary I was reading that brought this passage to light. But even though I can’t do that, I can pass along their wisdom.

In the first sense, a fool looks only to mock and deride. Their mind is closed and they are uninterested in any serious discussion of their illogic or mistake. They’ve made up their mind and it isn’t changing. Trying to engage such a person in an earnest way simply subjects you and your position to unnecessary ridicule. You get into an unproductive and unnecessary tit for tat that profits no one. The Bible says that willfully acquiescing to such is the behavior of a fool.

So how do you handle that kind of confrontation wisely? That’s the second part of the proverb. Rather than being drug into a cesspool of contempt, simply turn the fool’s foolishness against them. Wield as a weapon that which they attempt to wield against you, thus shaming their contempt for wisdom and truth.

Let me give an example. A few years ago, an overly brash attorney working for the grossly unserious Freedom From Religion Foundation, Andrew Seidel, made a remark on Twitter meant to inflame and enrage believers:

Now, what did Andrew really want here? He wanted believers to argue with him and tell him how the Bible isn’t immoral, how it’s wonderful, how it’s changed them, how it’s liberating, how it’s God’s Word, so on and so forth. And Andrew would be ready to ridicule and mock anyone who climbed down into the mud with him. I chose not to because Proverbs tells me not to answer a fool according to his folly.

Instead, I chose to answer him in a way that pointed out his folly while not allowing him to be haughty and wise in his own eyes. Like this:

Rather than being able to mock believers for their faith, Seidel was forced into a, “Well, but, no, I didn’t mean” defense. This is the wisdom of the proverb.

And to that end, this is precisely why I’ve come to adore the Babylon Bee. The Christian satire site does it the right way – being willing to poke fun at our own Christian culture and its eccentricities, but also chiding the absurdity of a world in rebellion to God by using absurdity.

And how do you know it’s effective? How do you know it’s obeying the Proverbs principle? Just look at the reactions of those who are no longer being left “wise in their own eyes.”

Snopes has been brilliantly exposed as nothing more than a left-wing propaganda machine, progressive activists posing as CNN reporters rage against the Bee for “misleading people” with their satire, notorious race-baiters fume at them, and even activists at leftist Christian outlets like RELEVANT magazine get worked into a lather when the Bee satirically points out the foolishness of rebellion to God.

They’re making the right people uncomfortable, a point that caught the attention of Tucker Carlson on Fox News the other night:

I’ll stop short of calling sarcasm and satire a spiritual gift, but there’s no question that answering fools according to their folly is doing the Lord’s work. Not because I say so, but because God did in Proverbs.

This article was originally published at DISRN.com. 

Several days ago, I took Tucker Carlson—a self-identifying Christian—to my teeny tiny virtual woodshed for congratulating homosexual Democratic strategist Richard Goodstein on his God-mocking, soul-destroying pseudo-marriage. Well, now I’m offering Carlson a hearty virtual pat on the back for Thursday night’s segment with Mark Steyn to whom I offer a bone-rattling pat on the back. Here’s an excerpt from their discussion of the loathsome Leftist tactic to oppress dissenters through control of language:

Steyn: “We have this immense cleansing of language. And [Leftists] are playing for big game here. I noticed about a decade ago, the government of Spain removed the words “mother” and “father” from its birth certificates and replaced them with “progenitor A” and “progenitor B”…. The fact is the abolition of “mother” and “father” is actually quite a big thing. And the Left is clever about this. They play for big prizes. One of the reasons I despair about the political Right is because we get all ‘Oohhh yeah, we’re trying to get a cut in capital gains tax through Congress!’ Meanwhile [Leftists] are abolishing the sexes. They’re ABOLISHING THE SEXES! That’s incredible!”

Carlson: “They’re re-ordering the natural order…. And the rest of us are either still playing these dumb low-stakes grievance politics… or arguing… the capital gains rate as if that really matters, because it doesn’t. Meanwhile no one’s getting married. The kids are all born out of wedlock. And  society collapses.”

Steyn: “One of the problems is… the Right gets head-faked into playing on the Left’s terms, in part because the Left changes the meaning of all the words, so you end up saying the same nonsense as the Left. People now can have their careers ruined because they ‘misgender’ someone on Twitter. We shouldn’t concede these things lightly…. This is actually industrial scale Orwellianism where you’re precisely inverting the meaning of language… so that people can’t even discuss certain topics anymore.”

Carlson: “When we give up these battles over words, we give up autonomy.”

I have long argued that there is no greater threat to our First Amendment protections than that posed by “LGBTQQAP” fascists. I have specifically said—and taken flak from RINOs for doing so—that the reductively called social issues are far more important than tax rates. And I have said countless times that under no circumstances should conservatives capitulate to language diktats. Do not ever mis-sex cross-sex masqueraders. Do not ever use pronouns that don’t match biological sex.

I would quibble with Steyn on one word. He said, “we shouldn’t concede these things lightly.” I would argue that we shouldn’t concede these things—period. It is neither loving nor “woke” to concede to the language edicts of the science-denying “trans” cult. (Pssst, come closer—you may also say “tr*nny,” just not on Facebook or the FB Overlords will come in the dark of night and throw you in the slammer.)

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Tucker-4.mp3

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

-and, please-

Written by Anne Reed

For those of who have fought for the reversal of Roe v. Wade for years, it has seemed, at times, like a giant too powerful to topple. But the landscape is changing. As little David stood with five smooth rocks in hand, one made its way to the slingshot. Maybe, just maybe, a similar rock is prepped and ready in our day. Now.

Politically speaking, the divide between abortion supporters and opponents is as wide as the east is from the west. With the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the air has become increasingly volatile as the real-life prospect of overturning the 1973 landmark decision that legalized abortion nationwide is coming into view.

Also remarkable is the timing of a new film Roe v. Wade, produced by Alveda King, niece of the late Martin Luther King, Jr. The movie is currently under production and is causing quite a stir.

A number of cast and crew members have quit, citing the pro-life slant or confusion caused by the privacy requirements concerning the script. You would think it was being produced by President Donald J. Trump himself the way the liberal, agenda-driven mainstream media is going after it – thus the great need for confidentiality.

Tucker Carlson of Fox News put his finger on it when he asked director Nick Loeb a rhetorical question during a recent interview:

“If you try to make a film that doesn’t celebrate that Supreme Court decision as a watermark in the advancement of the human race, I think you’re going to run into some trouble, don’t ya’ think?”

Well, that was a mouthful.

I always find it amusing when the left refers to the court case as “Roe” for short as they make their rabid pro-abortion case – as if Roe herself was making their case. Not so. Ms. Roe (Norma McCorvey), who died last February, longed to see the case overturned. She wrote two books detailing the behind-the-scenes manipulation and lies, and her new life as a Christ follower and pro-life activist: I am Roe (1994), and Won by Love (1998).

The liberal media is working hard to discredit the Roe v. Wade movie – anything to keep the truth buried in the dark. But in the midst of the fierce attacks, the producer and director are determined to show on the big screen the back alley manipulating that brought the infamous case to the Supreme Court and to its perceived final victory.

Let’s just look at one article published by Yahoo News from The Cut as an example. The writer went so far as to link a story from Jezebel.com, an internet site sharing a name with King Ahab’s wife, the biblical supermodel of rebellion and wickedness. While the site attempted to paint Martin Luther King, Jr. as pro-abortion, Alveda clarified that while her uncle never supported abortion, his wife did, as did Alveda herself in her early years. Alveda now openly shares about her past abortions, as well as her transformation from darkness and death to light and life.

The Yahoo article criticized the movie for including Center for Medical Progress investigative video footage exposing Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby organs and its eerily calloused contempt for human life. Of course, the author of the article is sure to remind her readers that Planned Parenthood “vociferously and repeatedly denied” the actions portrayed in videos that were, by the way, provided in their entirety on YouTube.

The writer also claims the film will likely be rated R because of “several graphic scenes depicting aborted fetuses,” including one showing “a dozen buckets of tiny fetuses and baby parts” found in an abortionist’s hotel room during a police sting.

It is baffling that abortion proponents find it morally repugnant to show “graphic” actual images of aborted fetuses. If it is merely a clump of cells, a parasite, contents of pregnancy, or whatever else they choose to call these precious human lives, then why is it so offensive to show?

I could go on…and on.

Before directing the film, Loeb was best known for his custody battle over frozen embryos shared with former girlfriend, Sofia Vergara. He was approached by the director/screenwriter of Roe v. Wade who explained that a 1989 made-for-TV movie about Roe v. Wade didn’t really lay out the truth surrounding the case.

When Loeb read the script, he was shocked.

“Everyone in America has heard of Roe v. Wade, but no one really knows the true story of what led up to that,” he explained.

He then went on to read about 40 different books and the bios of others linked to the story, like Norma McCorvey. And he became determined to make the truth known.

For more information about the movie, go to roevwademovie.com by clicking here.

This article originally posted at AFA.net.

Last week the people of Ireland voted to repeal Ireland’s Eighth Amendment that granted “equal protection of the right to life of the preborn child and his or her mother.” After the repeal, “legislators will have the power to legalize abortion for any reason up to birth.”

Leading up to the vote, however, Facebook, Twitter and Google all weighed in — arguably on the side of the pro-abort forces:

Google, Facebook, Twitter ban pro-life ads on Ireland abortion referendum

Leading up to the May 25th referendum in Ireland on repealing the Eighth Amendment, Google announced that it would suspend all advertising related to the subject. The move has been condemned by pro-life groups as an attempt “to rig the election.”

In the announcement, Google claimed the decision came as part of “our update around election integrity efforts globally.” Pro-abortion groups applauded the decision, but as observers have noted, the only ads related to the referendum appear to be pro-life ads, so the ban would effectively benefit the pro-abortion campaign and harm campaign efforts for life in Ireland.

Also, from the article:

The repeal campaign has benefitted from marked pro-abortion bias in the media, celebrity endorsements and significant funding from the international abortion lobby. As such, the pro-life campaigners are at a disadvantage and have used online advertising on Google and social media platforms to reach voters with their message. The pro-life groups Save the 8th and the Iona Institute issued a joint statement that read in part, “Online was the only platform available to the No campaign to speak to voters directly. That platform is now being undermined in order to prevent the public from hearing the message of one side.”

And this:

Twitter has also announced that it will suspend ads related to the referendum ahead of the May 25th vote. Twitter has a confirmed history of censoring pro-life content.

Facebook also “jumped on the bandwagon” to ban ads. The article notes that “the pro-abortion side is far from immune from outside influence as this side has received significant monetary support from George Soros and other globalist elites.” The question whether the social media giants would’ve issued the restriction “if a surge in advertising had come from the Yes [pro-abortion] side?” is worth asking.

Facebook claimed “neutrality” in a statement: “We understand the sensitivity of this campaign and will be working hard to ensure neutrality at all stages… Our goal is simple: to help ensure a free, fair and transparent vote on this important issue.”

Do you believe them?

There is plenty of reason not to. After all, the way the social media giants have been caught censoring conservatives, the claim of neutrality isn’t believable in the least. To read more about that — skim the many articles linked here.

After the 2016 elections, those social media giants realized that if their political agenda was to be advanced, they were going to have to clamp down even further on the information being provided by conservative organizations. Here was a headline at The Daily Signal: “After Royally Screwing Up the Election, the Media Want Control Over Your Facebook News.”

If the social media giants are indeed Leftists and committed to silencing conservatives, what is to be done?

An interesting article recently posted at National Review about whether those big tech companies are violating anti-trust laws. Here is an excerpt:

There is a strong Republican antitrust tradition.

The big digital monopolies demand that we conform to their worldview and shut us down when we dissent. They have too much power. They are are threat to this country. Congress is doing nothing about it. It’s time to complain, while we still can. #Tucker @FoxNews

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) April 27, 2018

When he tweeted these words, Carlson was expressing a sentiment that many on the right have come to embrace. People are concerned, with good reason, that big tech companies discriminate against conservatives. Numerous conservative outlets have had their videos demonetized on Google’s YouTube. PragerU is appealing their loss in a lawsuit over that. A study by The Western Journal showed that a change to Facebook’s algorithm disproportionately harmed conservative sites.

In normal circumstances, this wouldn’t be a problem for government to solve, but social media has come to dominate our national conversation. Large political websites thrive or die based on changes to Facebook and Google algorithms. Everyone from cable news to newspapers to online-only publications create and tweak their content based on how they think it will play on social media. A study has also shown that Google search results can have a frighteningly large impact on elections:

Randomized, controlled experiments conducted with more than 10,000 people from 39 countries suggest that one company alone — Google LLC, which controls about 90 percent of online search in most countries — has likely been determining the outcomes of upwards of 25 percent of the national elections in the world for several years now, with increasing impact each year as Internet penetration has grown.

Keep in mind that we’re not talking about individuals or even whole industries here; we’re talking about unaccountable monopolies with detailed information about hundreds of millions of Americans, billions in cash reserves, and the capability to shape what is discussed and what is not discussed in America in a way that no book, radio show, television show or individual has ever had.

The entire article can be found here.

Not everyone agrees. You can read an opposing view here.

Earlier this year, IFI asked the question “What is the Conservatives Movement’s Answer to Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube’s ‘Viewpoint Discrimination’?‘” That question is still on the table.

So many smaller groups often rely on the relatively inexpensive social media advertising options to help make more people aware that there are other arguments other than those coming from the Leftist “mainstream” media, Hollywood, and any number of other outlets.

This issue, and this challenge, isn’t going away any time soon. There is plenty of talent and resources available on the conservative side of the aisle. Eventually that talent and those dollars will have to get serious about winning the information war — with the help of Leftist social media giants or not.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

Those with ears to hear fear it’s coming. They fear the impending death of FOX News as a voice for conservatism. They see FOX gasping for air in its miasmic studio spaces, but they fear too little life-sustaining air remains. Retaining conservative views on defense and fiscal policy cannot sustain either the health of a political party or the soundness of political punditry.

Although there have long been troubling signs, it was first Bret Baier’s and then Tucker Carlson’s references to objectively, immutably male persons by female pronouns that signaled that perhaps FOX News is too far gone. What some argue is a triviality—that is, grammatically incorrect pronoun use—is in reality momentous. If FOX News show anchors and commentators start using politically correct, grammatically incorrect pronouns it will signal that they have lost either their moral compasses or their countercultural courage or both. And it has been these values that enabled FOX News to thrive in the midst of cultural collapse.

For quite some time, FOX political commentators have either studiously avoided addressing matters related to homosexuality or “trans”-cultism or have addressed them in a pallid, opinion-free way that thinly cloaks itself in the pseudo-nobility of “neutrality.” But using female pronouns to refer to objectively male persons is a leap down from impartiality into the pit of “progressive” partisanship. It signals a cowardly capitulation to the dogmatic rhetorical diktats of sexuality anarchists.

Do Carlson and Baier rationalize their emasculated acquiescence by telling themselves that pronouns are only insignificant parts of speech or that referring to men who pretend to be women by opposite-sex pronouns is a matter of compassion or civility? Or in the privacy of their homes, do they confess to their wives that the motive for their complicity in rhetorical fraud is their all too human but still indefensible desire to keep their well-paying jobs? Is it cravenness, foolishness, or venality that impels their capitulation?

While florists, bakers, photographers, and calligraphers with far less resources risk everything in the service of truth, will Baier and Carlson sell their souls for a mess of pottage? Okay, maybe not their souls, but surely their integrity.

When will conservatives understand what Leftists understand, which is that language matters? Have conservatives not read George Orwell? Orwell warned against what he deemed Newspeak, which is exactly what politically-correct pronouns for biological sex-rejecting persons constitute:

Newspeak was the official language of Oceania, and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of IngSoc, or English Socialism….

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all…a heretical thought…should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever….

[T]he special function of certain Newspeak words… was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them….

[W]ords which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them.

Integrity and wisdom are precious commodities these days, certainly not found often on television—not even on FOX News. The situation is going to get only worse now that Rupert Murdoch’s sons Lachlan and James have taken over the reins. Sure, they’re mopping out the lecherous serial harassers of women, but they’re cleaning house with dirty water. Swish, out goes boorishness. Back-swish, in comes Newspeak.

In a profile of the Murdoch men, the New York Times reported that last fall at FOX broadcast network, “James and Lachlan introduced additional benefits, including…vastly enhanced reproductive coverage for women and ‘expanded coverage for our transgender colleagues.’” Do the Murdoch brothers’ efforts to facilitate their colleagues’ quest to conceal their actual sex end with medical insurance or do their efforts include requiring Newspeak at FOX News?

The New York Times piece explains that “James and his progressive-minded wife, Kathryn, have long been embarrassed by certain elements of Fox News.” Maybe their embarrassment, informed by “progressivism” as it appears it to be, will accelerate the pace of Leftward-leaning changes already taking root at FOX:

“The brothers have even shaken up 21st Century Fox’s profile in Washington, replacing their father’s Republican lobbying chief with a Democratic one. One Hollywood friend equated their mind-set to moving into an outdated house and looking for wood rot.”

I’m all for getting rid of wood rot, but I suspect the Murdoch boys have redefined “rot.” Good things like recognizing the human species as sexually binary and marriage as an intrinsically sexually complementary institution are likely now considered wood rot.

In addition to Baier’s and Carlson’s troubling  use of Newspeak, there are the gaseous exhalations of homosexual FOX host Shepard Smith who never misses an opportunity to make snide remarks about conservative beliefs on homosexuality, thereby poisoning his reporting. While not as overtly and relentlessly in the tank for homoeroticism as Smith, other former and current FOX stars, including Megyn Kelly, Bill O’Reilly, Eric Bolling, Dana Perino, Greg Gutfeld, and Kimberley Guilfoyle, have expressed their support for the legal recognition of homoerotic unions as “marriages.” And those whom the public suspects still hold conservative views on matters related to homosexuality or gender dysphoria, like Sean Hannity, rarely address the issues and almost never offer substantive and hearty defenses of conservative positions as they do on fiscal or defense issues.

All is not yet lost, however. On Monday night, Carlson managed to avoid using female pronouns when talking about his guest “Caitlyn” Jenner. And Carlson did press Jenner—albeit just a little with his pinky finger—asking him, “Do you think it’s possible for people of good will, people of faith, people of generous spirits to be confused at least, or baffled and say ‘I’m not exactly sure I understand this’ and still be good people?”

But Carlson’s question is problematic in that it implies that opposition to “trans”-cultic assumptions is driven by confusion or bafflement rather than truth. And Carlson never confronted “trans”-activist Jenner the way he confronts other guests who hold inane views. For example, why didn’t he ask Jenner, who now has a spanking new birth certificate that identifies his gender at birth as female, if he should relinquish his Olympic decathlon gold medal since he claims he has always been female. Either his birth certificate is fraudulent or his Olympic participation as a male was. Both cannot be true.

Hope springs eternal that FOX will one day soon hire some true conservative commentators who are smart, wise, and courageous enough to offer full-bodied, unashamed, articulate, intelligent defenses of conservative positions on issues related to homosexuality and who will invite guests with more to offer than Jenner–people like Ryan Anderson, Michael L. Brown, Anthony Esolen, Robert George, Jennifer Roback  Morse, and Doug Wilson.  Boy oh boy would I like to see those interviews. They would provide the fresh air FOX needs and its viewers deserve.

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click HERE to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI