Back in 2008, with a little encouragement from friend, Constitutional law professor and radio talk show host, Hugh Hewitt, I signed on to Twitter and was know as an early adapter.

Twitter was a new social media tool whereby like-minded conservatives could share content, message, and cheer each other on. The Right was swimming upstream and almost all broadcast media and other societal gatekeepers had lurched radically to the left, leaving conservatives adrift and feeling alone in an ever-darkenting culture.

I wrote some tutorials (Twitter for Newbies and Twitter for Newbies 102) on using Twitter for conservative and Christian messaging. Now, a mere 12 years later we’ve experienced another seismic shift in culture: the radical “gay” agenda, the radical pro-abort agenda, the socialist agenda, BLM et al have pressed the attack to their advantage.

And now the Twitterverse is closely guarded by its Leftist CEOs and social media techinitions, censoring conservatives and any who object to their godless worldview.

Which is why we’re seeing a mass exodus from Twitter to the newer, freer Parler.

What in the wide, wide world is Parler?

Parler is the French verb, “to speak” and the French pronunciation (par LAY) was the initial pronunciation, but since has changed to the English “parler,” (PAR ler) as in “a place to sit and visit.”

The platforms website explains its inception:

Parler was founded in 2018 and based in Henderson, Nevada. After being exhausted with a lack of transparency in big tech, ideological suppression and privacy abuse, our co-founders, John Matze and Jared Thomson decided to create an alternative solution.

Parler provides a Commenting and Social News platform for digital publishers, influencers, bloggers, writers, politicians and social users to share news, opinions and content in real time. Additionally, we provide enterprise tools to enhance online blogs, media and websites with direct social integrations and monetization capabilities.

Their tagline:

Parler is a non-biased free speech driven entity

Of note…while Twitter, Facebook and YouTube mention “Community Guidelines,” those mysterious guidelines are nowhere the average Joe can find them and they seem to be entirely subjective, bending and moving to suit the social media entity’s progressive policing staff.

Parler, on the other hand, has easy to find Community Guidelines which appear to be quite reasonable: no spam, no terrorism, no unsolicited advertisements, no pornography, no obscenity, plagiarism, sex trafficking, etc. Every listed constraint falls in line with a decent citizen’s mindset, a Christian or faith worldview.

Laura Ingraham interviewed Parler CEO John Matze in May 2019:

And on Fox Business last month a short report aired of prominent Conservatives who have made the move to Parler (including Devin Nunes, Ted Cruz, President Donald J. Trump, Dan Bongino, etc.):

Even the Washington Examiner featured an article on June 24, chronicling the Conservative migration wave to Parler, “Conservatives fed up with ‘censorship’ on Twitter jump to Parler“:

Conservative commentators, politicians, and others are shifting to a social media platform that competes with Twitter.

A slew of Twitter users looking for a social media platform they believe won’t censor them, including Rep. Devin Nunes, commentator Jesse Kelly, former Navy SEAL Robert O’Neill, and others, announced they have established accounts on Parler.

Nunes told the Federalist’s co-founder Sean Davis that “Parler will set you free!”

I made the move to Parler a couple years ago, when my friend, Elizabeth Johnston (“The Activist Mommy“) recommended the new social media platform.

https://www.facebook.com/theactivistmommy/posts/1929353640516109

As Christians, we are called to:

Do everything without grumbling or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, “children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation.” Then you will shine among them like stars in the sky. (Phil. 2:14&15)

And we are admonished in the Gospels:

You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. (Matt. 5:13)

And in the epistle of Peter:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. (1 Peter 3:15)

Those verses are our marching orders from Jesus: we Believers are to shine like stars (reflecting the light of The Son!), be “salt” (both preserving from decay and adding savor) in our culture, and be perpetually ready to tell a lost world about the great and mighty hope we have!

Such a mission is not for cowards, but brave and courageous souls. The meekness we’re instructed to temper our words is “power under control,” not mealy-mouthed reticence.

We should be joyful warriors, battling as outlined in Ephesians:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (Eph. 6:12-17)

Defensively, social media platforms can indeed be effective mediums to counter the untruths being propagated in our society. And offensively, social media can be a powerful means of disseminating a message of life and hope.

Unfortunately, too many of the big tech companies are wholly owned and operated by progressives more concerned with leftist indoctrination than providing a free speech forum.

For now, Parler seems to provide such a forum with only minimum and reasonable constraints.

I say make the move! Sign up at Parler and join those of us who choose speak words of truth and life to our dark, dark culture.

You can download the apps on your smartphone:

These may or may not be the last days, but we know we’re to be busy no matter what sharing the Good News and telling the truth to hungry hearts in a dark, dark world.

For now, Parler may just be a great tool to further that important and eternal mission!

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) has introduced a bill that would allow Americans to sue companies such as Twitter, Google, and Facebook for censoring political speech. The bill comes as an activist NBC journalist contacted Google to demonetize The Federalist and then reported on it.

The Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act, which was introduced June 17 would amend Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, is co-sponsored by U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), Mike Braun (R-IN), Tom Cotton (R-AR), and Kelly Loeffler (R-GA).

“Big Tech companies like Twitter, Google and Facebook,” Hawley said, “have used their power to silence political speech from conservatives without any recourse for users. Section 230 has been stretched and rewritten by courts to give these companies outlandish power over speech without accountability. Congress should act to ensure bad actors are not given a free pass to censor and silence their opponents.”

Under the terms of the bill, companies would be prohibited from receiving Section 230 immunity unless they “update their terms of service to promise to operate in good faith and pay a $5,000 fine (or actual damages, if higher) plus attorney’s fees if they violate that promise.”

It would also let users sue companies for breaching the terms of good faith and prohibit companies from discriminating when enforcing terms of service and failing to honor their promises.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is also preparing legislation that would remove legal protections from companies “when they facilitate or solicit content or activity from third parties that violate federal law.” According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, the DOJ’s proposals will not only address the question of censorship, but also tackle social media’s facilitation of child exploitation, terrorism, cyberstalking, and other crimes:

The department’s proposal, for instance, would remove legal protections when platforms facilitate or solicit third-party content or activity that violates federal criminal law, such as online scams and trafficking in illicit drugs. The department also wouldn’t confer immunity to platforms in instances involving online child exploitation and sexual abuse, terrorism or cyberstalking. Those carve-outs are needed to curtail immunity for internet companies to allow victims to seek redress, the official said.

The Justice Department also will seek to make clear that tech platforms don’t have immunity in civil-enforcement actions brought by the federal government, and can’t use immunity as a defense against antitrust claims that they removed content for anticompetitive reasons.

Regarding the situation with NBC, Google, and the Federalist, the journalist from NBC made a complaint to Google about criticism of Black Lives Matter that appeared on The Federalist’s website. She then bragged about her “co-investigation” with Google getting the site demonetized. Everything was quickly sorted out, with Google claiming it never demonetized the Federalist.

This censorship issue will most likely continue to come up as the election season goes on. Twitter has been in the spotlight for slapping warning labels on tweets by President Donald Trump saying they violate the company’s policies forbidding abusive behavior. The president has responded that the company is trying to silence conservative voices and hurt his re-election campaign. An executive order he tried to put in place to ease social media restrictions on speech has been blocked in court.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact Illinois’ U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to ask them to support and/or co-sponsor S. 3983. The “big tech” social media giants should be held accountable facilitating federal crimes, including terrorism and child exploitation as well as for their anti-conservative bias (censorship) in moderating content.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

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. 

Written by Peter Heck

This was the tweet from the Toronto Star that left every rational mind who saw it shaking their head in disbelief:

Everyone has a cause they’re passionate about. Everyone has convictions that they embrace and opinions they feel strongly about. But this? This is just crazy. It’s nuts. It’s so separated from reality it almost defies logic how (1) a person capable of functioning in civil society could come to these conclusions, and (2) how a news publication lacks the editorial discretion to politely say, “We’re going to pass on this one.”

Chick-fil-A is a fast food restaurant that serves, employs, pays, and offers benefits to people who consider themselves gay, queer, lesbian, bi, and any other sexually-specific identity a person wants to claim. They do not discriminate, they do not show partiality or prejudice. They sell chicken sandwiches in clean restaurants (except on Sundays).

What irks people (like the author of this dangerously disturbed piece in the Toronto Star) is that the owners of Chick-fil-A are Christians who personally hold to a belief in the Christian sexual ethic. That’s literally it: the owners of the restaurant chain are Christians who strive to honor God and live in obedience to His word. That obedience means promoting God’s plan for human flourishing, which is why not only do the owners of Chick-fil-A believe God’s guideposts on sexuality are to be honored, but also His desire for us to serve one another, to love one another, and to do all things (even making and selling chicken sandwiches) as though we are working for God Himself and not for man.

That such a perspective engenders such outraged, maniacal hatred from left-wing sexual activists really says a lot about the heart and goodwill of those activists.  Consider, you will not see Chick-fil-A tweeting from their social media account their disdain for queer people. But you will see those “queer activists” tweeting and publishing hate pieces maligning and libeling Chick-fil-A for pretended offenses.

And while it’s abundantly clear that the attacks on Chick-fil-A have, and continue to backfire spectacularly (this piece details how the fast food leader has doubled their sales since activists demanded a boycott of their stores), nobody should pretend the cultural assault being waged against the business is healthy or acceptable.

If anyone is releasing “poison” into our cities, wouldn’t that distinction belong to the ones who refuse to do business with those who hold religious convictions different than their own?

Aren’t the architects of hatred those who would prefer to reach for their keyboards to type words of discontent, conflict, and contempt rather than seek to know, appreciate, and grant the benefit of the doubt to their neighbors?

At some point our culture is going to have to grapple with the undeniable reality the merchants of hatred aren’t the people wiping off our tables and saying, “my pleasure.” They’re the ones standing outside picketing and protesting that kind service.

This article was originally published at Disrn.com.

Everyone who’s conscious knows that Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are in the tank for “progressivism”—also known as “Cultural Regressivism that Undermines Decency” (CRUD). While the hive at Google manipulates its algorithms to hide information that regressives don’t like, Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook Overlords censor with the kind of tyrannical oppression that in the good old days liberals and radicals feared and loathed. Now that liberals and radicals control the levers of power, they have abandoned all previous philosophical commitments to freedom and liberty. A new explosive undercover video by Project Veritas exposes the extraordinary and deceitful machinations of Google to manipulate access to information in order that regressivism can gain and maintain yet more power. In other words, Google—like its fascistic government precursors—exploits its monopolistic power to propagandize, thereby securing its iron grip on power. Resistance is almost futile.

With his face and voice concealed, a Google insider warns about the implications of the confluence of Google’s power, reach, and bias:

What’s scary is that Google’s deciding what’s important and what’s not important. They are… effectively deleting conversations from the national narrative. It reminds me of… a book called 1984. That should have been a warning…. Google’s… deciding what gets read, what gets consumed, what people are able to click on, what appears. It reminds me a lot of fascism…. When videos get pulled off of a platform, that’s… a form of censorship…. People have no idea that it’s happening. They still think that Google’s an objective source of information and it’s not.

Secretly recorded conversations with Google executive Jen Gennai reinforces the claims of the Google insider, further revealing Google’s Leftist bias, arrogance, and determined efforts to use its power to influence the next presidential election:

The reason we launched our [Artificial Intelligence] principles is because people were not …. saying what is fair and what’s equitable, so we’re like, “Well, we are a big company. We’re going to say it.”… [M]y definition of fairness and bias specifically talks about historically marginalized communities, and that’s who I care about. Communities who are in power, and have traditionally been in power, are not who I’m solving fairness for. Our definition of fairness is one of those things that we thought would be like obvious, and everybody would agree to, and it wasn’t…. [T]he same people who voted for the current President did not agree with our definition of fairness.

Gennai’s/Google’s—let’s just say Gennoogle—Gennoogle’s definition of fairness differs not only from the definition held by the “people who voted for the current president” but also from the definition held by many others. Many people understand “fairness” to mean “impartial or just treatment without favoritism” or “the quality of treating people equally.”

“Historically marginalized communities” refers to identity-peddlers’ four favorite categories of humans:  blacks, women, homosexuals, and cross-sex “passers.” Leftists like Gennoogle have been forced to add “historically” to marginalized, since these groups have pushed from the margins to the center which will not hold.

Clearly Gennoogle has no interest in genuine fairness. “Fairness,” like hatred, inclusivity, safety, tolerance, and equality, means exactly what the googley Humpty Dumptys choose it to mean. Who cares if theologically orthodox Christians or political conservatives are treated unfairly. That’s their problem to solve, dagnabbit!

Gennai reveals the supreme arrogance of Google, which presumes to make “things more fair” by supplanting the will of the people as expressed through the duly elected executive and legislative branches of the government with Gennoogle’s reconceptualization of “fairness”:

The White House and Congress won’t play a role in making things more fair, so people are holding us accountable to fill the gap of what should be done.

Gennai makes clear the presumptive supremacy of the Google hive mind over the elected representatives of the people:

We got called in front of Congress multiple times, and we’ve not shown up because we’re like, we just know they’re going to just attack us. We’re not going to change our mind. There’s no point in just sitting there being attacked over something that we know we’re not going to change…. They can pressure us, but we’re not changing.

Gennai adds more flesh to the bones hinted at in her allusion to Trump, his supporters, and “fairness”:

Elizabeth Warren is saying that we should break up Google…. [S]he’s very misguided. That will not make it better, it will make it worse because now all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation…. a small company cannot do that.

We all got screwed over in 2016…. so now we’ve rapidly been like, “What happened there? How do we prevent it from happening again?”

Evidently in panic mode after the exposé was released, Gennai penned a futile effort to recast her damning words and malign Project Veritas:

[T]hese people lied about their true identities, filmed me without my consent, selectively edited and spliced the video to distort my words and the actions of my employer, and published it widely online.

While Google engages in unconscionable, secretive efforts to manipulate public opinion and to silence conservative employees through fear of loss of employment, she’s outraged about being secretly recorded?

Surely a smart human like Gennai knows that all documentaries and exposés “selectively” edit. The ethical issue is not whether an exposé is selectively edited. The ethical issue is whether it was edited in such a way as to distort someone’s words. Gennai tries to prove that Project Veritas distorted her words about the 2016 election, saying she never suggested Google objected to Trump’s election per se but rather to “foreign interference”:

In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016.

If Gennoogle’s concern were really with online foreign interference, what sense did her statement about being “screwed” mean, since Russian attempts at foreign interference didn’t affect the election outcome. Leftists like Gennoogle believe they were “screwed” by Trump’s winning. They were not “screwed” by Russian attempts to interfere. Does Gennai think all Americans just fell off the turnip truck?

Project Veritas asked the Google insider about the meaning of this statement from an internal Google document:

In some cases, it may be appropriate to take no action if the system accurately affects current reality. While in other cases, it may be desirable to consider how we might help society reach a more fair and equitable state via product intervention.”

The Google insider translated into plain English what “helping society” looks like in the Google hive:

What they want to do is they want to act as gatekeepers between the user and the content that they’re trying to access. They’re going to come in, they’re going to filter the content. They’re going to say, “Actually, we don’t want to give the user access to that information because it’s going to create an outcome that’s undesirable to us.”

This exposé will come as no surprise to former Google employee Mike Wacker, recently fired for publicly criticizing Google’s “outrage mobs and witch hunts.” Wacker shared that the Google outrage mobs (OMs) demanded Google have nothing to do with the conservative Heritage Foundation, calling its president Kay Cole James the Grand Wizard of the KKK. For those who don’t know, Kay Cole James is black and endured egregious racist attacks when growing up.

You may wonder exactly how the OMs could justify calling a black woman the Grand Wizard of the KKK. Well, this particular OM has concluded, apparently with no scientific proof, that masquerading as the opposite sex is analogous to race, and, therefore, opposing things like co-ed restrooms and locker rooms—which the Heritage Foundation does—is analogous to racism.

Wacker revealed that one Google employee was reported to Human Resources (HR) for sharing a National Review article, and another was reported for appearing “to be promoting and defending Jordan Peterson’s comments about transgender pronouns,” which allegedly made some Google employee “feel unsafe at work.” #eyeroll

What other subjective, often-changeable feelings will Google OMs conclude are analogous to race? Will those employees who disagree with the hive’s assumptions about those other feelings be safe in that “nonpartisan,” inclusive space to express their views? And what if the OMs are wrong? What if cross-sex identification, cross-sex hormone-doping, surgical mutilation, and co-ed private spaces are, in reality, neither good nor right?

While Wacker lost his job, Blake Lemoine retains his job as senior software engineer at Google. The name Blake Lemoine may sound familiar. He made the news in 2018 for calling Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn a terrorist for writing an op-ed critical of the obvious bias against conservatives and Republicans within tech companies like Google and Facebook.

Wacker reports that in internal Google employee forums, Lemoine also said this:

If you think that trans women aren’t women then you can either keep it to yourself or GTFO [Get the f**k out]. Google’s corporate policies are crystal clear on that.

While Google employees are free to say that “transwomen”—who are objectively, immutably, scientifically verifiably men—are women, others are not permitted to say “transwomen” are men. Deviate from the deviant narrative and off with your head!

Trouble seems to follow Lemoine—who identifies variously as a pagan priest and Gnostic Christian—wherever he goes. The “bisexual” Lemoine who is in a “non-monogamous” relationship with his wife enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2003 and then in 2004 “realized he did not like working with U.S. Army troops.” When the Army refused to allow him “to quit the Army,” he went on a work strike and then a hunger strike. He was court-martialed and discharged for bad conduct.

Before whistle-blower Mike Wacker, there was former Google engineer James Damore who was fired in 2017 after he wrote and distributed a measured internal memo replete with evidence in which he criticized Google for, among other things, being “an ideological echo chamber.” Can’t have any Google employee pointing out that the emperor brooks no dissent. Off with his head!

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Dark-Underbelly-of-Google.mp3

IFI Fall Banquet with Franklin Graham!
We are excited to announce that at this year’s IFI banquet, our keynote speaker will be none other than Rev. Franklin Graham, President & CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christian evangelist & missionary. This year’s event will be at the Tinley Park Convention Center on Nov. 1st.

Learn more HERE.

We all know about the leftist leanings of the so-called masters of the universe, the internet giants. We all know about the discriminatory treatment that many of us on the right are experiencing. The question is: How do we respond? Do we pick up our marbles and leave? Do we build our own platforms? Do we stand up and fight? Or perhaps it’s a combination of all of the above?

Recently, Lawrence Jones, editor-in-chief for Campus Reform, opined that conservatives are being lazy here. In his words, “Go create your own platforms.”

Jones, who is a libertarian, believes that the social media giants are free to run their companies however they want to, and if we don’t like it, we should go elsewhere.

In the end, we may have no choice but to do that very thing, and at this moment, millions of dollars are being invested in the development of new platforms.

As for Campus Reform, it is one of the most important voices today when it comes to exposing the radical leftist agenda on our college and university campuses.

That being said, I take issue with Jones’ assessment for a few reasons.

First, we helped build these very platforms. Conservatives like you and me helped build YouTube and Facebook and Twitter and Google.

Some of us have spent thousands of hours developing videos or posting blogs or making comments, getting our message out with regularity and interacting with millions of others in the process.

Why should we simply walk away without pushing back? Why should we concede defeat when we have hardly begun to stand?

Second, when we came on board, no one told us that these platforms would be biased against us.

Had we known this up front, many of us would not have gotten involved in the first place.

Instead, what we understood was that these were neutral platforms. These were networks where we could connect with our friends. These were accessible places where we could share our videos. These were settings where we could intersect with people from all backgrounds.

It would be akin to a new bank opening in our city, offering the most attractive interest rates and the best customer options. So, we gladly switch our accounts to that bank.

It is only then, once the bank has our money, that we find out they are using the profits to fund radical, anti-Christian causes. And to add insult to injury, in the fine print, there’s a severe penalty for early withdrawal.

Obviously, the analogy is not meant to be exact. (So, please back off, dear critics.) But it is meant to convey a point: Had we known the facts at the outset, we would not have put our money in that bank.

At this point, having made substantial investments of time and energy, building our audiences and our platforms, we’re not ready to simply walk away.

Third, for some of us, the whole goal is reach and impact. In my case, AskDrBrown is a non-profit ministry, so we live and breathe to reach others with our message. We’re here to make the maximum impact on the maximum number of people, and that means not just preaching to the choir.

So, as long as YouTube allows us to post our videos, we will continue to use that platform, since we reach millions of people who otherwise would not know about us.

Day and night, we receive hateful, ugly comments from critics and bashers. Day and night, quite literally 24/7, we receive comments from dissenters and from seekers.

So, since it is one of our goals to shine God’s light in dark places, we’re not prepared to walk away just because we are being unfairly treated.

I’m sure many other conservatives, be it for moral or spiritual or ideological reasons, feel the same way.

Fourth, there is something that everyone can do, and it’s quite simple.

Focusing on YouTube in particular, if you like the content you’re watching and the channel has been demonetized, then support that channel directly.

At present, the moment one of our videos goes live, it gets flagged by YouTube as not suitable for all advertisers, forcing us to request a manual review. In some cases, the videos are approved; in other cases, not. (So, to be clear, the videos are not being blocked or removed. They’re being demonetized.)

As much as possible, we are challenging YouTube to be fair and consistent. That’s all we’re asking for.

Again, the day might come when these doors will close to us entirely. Or new and better platforms might be developed. Or the whole face of the internet might take a dramatic new turn.

But for now, let’s stand up and speak out and push back. The door is not yet slammed in our face.

This article was initially published on AskDrBrown.org

You’ll definitely want to save the date for the next IFI Fall Banquet: Friday, November 1st. This year our keynote speaker will be none other than Rev. Franklin Graham, President & CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christian evangelist & missionary. He is also Editor-in-Chief of Decision Magazine, the “Evangelical Voice for Today,” which features solid scriptural teaching as well as cutting-edge stories about issues and events in today’s culture, from a biblical worldview.

Franklin Graham is recognized as one of our nation’s most outspoken Christian leaders who has consistently defended Judeo-Christian values, America’s religious liberties, and the importance of the traditional family as indispensable for a stable society. Rev. Graham has also continuously worked to defend the right to life for all Americans, including the unborn. And through Samaritan’s Purse, he has helped to meet the needs of poor, sick, and suffering people around the world.

As a speaker and author, Rev. Graham regularly addresses current moral and social issues, calling Christians to stand for biblical values and challenging them to make a difference in the world for the sake of the gospel. Recently, he used his Twitter platform to respond to South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s claim that his Episcopalian religion and homosexuality is not a conflict of identities, saying:

Late last year, Rev. Graham also weighed in on the Satanic Temple sculpture that was on display in the Illinois Capitol Rotunda, next to the Christmas tree and near the Nativity Scene and Menorah. According to an NPR article, this display was “a gift from the Chicago branch of The Satanic Temple.” The article reports that this sculpture was called “Snaketivity” and was accompanied by a sign that proclaimed, “Knowledge Is The Greatest Gift.” Rev. Graham sent out a tweet saying that he agreed with Illinois Family Action’s tweet on the controversy, saying

Save the Date!

You don’t want to miss this great opportunity to hear from this much loved Christian leader at the biggest annual pro-family gathering in Illinois!

More details will follow, and as an important subscriber to Illinois Family Institute, we don’t want you to miss the chance to attend what we expect to be a powerful evening. 

Thank you for your ongoing support of the work and ministry of IFI. We sincerely hope to see you at the Tinley Park Convention Center on November 1st!

Click HERE for a banquet flyer.

You can also Partner with us as a Sponsor! Please contact us today! Banquet sponsorships start at $1,500 and range up to $10,000. Program advertising opportunities are also available.

Event Details:

Illinois Family Institute
Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet

Friday, November 1, 2019
Tinley Park Convention Center

Secure your tickets now. Click here or call (708) 781-9328.

Program advertisements & banquet sponsorships are available.

Early Bird Specials Expire on September 2nd!

The New York Times has published an opinion piece by another young man who seeks to pass as a woman. In his essay, Manhattan, Illinois native Parker Marie Molloy tries futilely to mask the incoherence of his argument, which is that banning words passers don’t like from social media platforms is necessary to protect freedom of speech. His argument is composed of two dubious contentions:

1.) If language issues make passers feel really bad, they will choose not to speak, thereby undermining the free exchange of ideas, so conservatives need to get with “trans”-constructed Newspeak. In the mixed up, muddled up, shook up “trans” world, speech must be controlled in order to protect speech.

2.) There’s no point in debating the foundational questions regarding the meaning of biological sex, the relationship between sex and “gender identity,” and the meaning of language, so Americans should just move on to policy discussions.

What got Molloy all atwitter was public criticism of Twitter’s illiberal censorship, that is, its decision to ban “deadnaming” and “misgendering” on its allegedly open platform:

We prohibit targeting individuals with… content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals. 

“Deadnaming” refers to using the names passers were given by their parents at birth or by their adoptive parents. “Misgendering” is a pejorative term invented to stigmatize the use of correct pronouns when referring to passers. In case anyone has forgotten, pronouns correspond to biological sex—not to subjective internal, non-material feelings about biological sex, maleness, or femaleness.

To be clear, Molloy is arguing for banning certain words in news media and on social media, and worse, he’s arguing for forcing everyone to speak certain words—words that embody, espouse, and imply acquiescence to a set of arguable assumptions.

Specifically, he wants to ban “deadnaming.” For example, he would want banned from social and news media the name “Bruce” when referring to the man who won the Olympic decathlon in 1976. Already Wikipedia is scrubbing facts from its biographies. While Wikipedia still “deadnames” John Wayne and Elton John, it omits the “deadnames” of Janet Mock, Jazz Jennings, and Kate Bornstein.

And Molloy wants to force everyone on social media and in the news media to use incorrect pronouns when referring to passers. Banning “misgendering” means mandating that people use incorrect pronouns when referring to people who seek to pass as the opposite sex. But banning “misgendering” would mean mandating mis-sexing. Oh what tangled webs….

Despite its evident belief to the contrary, the “trans” cult has no intrinsic right to revolutionize English grammar for the entire English-speaking world to make themselves feel better about their false beliefs or disordered desires about their biological sex. And normal people who reject the faith-based beliefs of passers have no moral or ethical obligation to use their Newspeak.

Twitter means serious censorship business with this new policy. Canadian feminist Meghan Murphy has already been Twitter-disappeared, which pleases Molloy because Murphy “regularly calls trans women ‘he’ and ‘him,’” and says, “men aren’t women.” Molloy believes no one should be allowed to publicly say that objectively male persons are not women.

Molloy describes his subjective, internal feelings about hearing others describe human reality truthfully, objectively, and accurately:

I find it degrading to be constantly reminded that I am trans and that large segments of the population will forever see me as a delusional freak. Things like deadnaming, or purposely referring to a trans person by their former name, and misgendering—calling someone by a pronoun they don’t use—are used to express disagreement with the legitimacy of trans lives and identities.

There is no right to be free from encountering ideas that we will find discomfiting—particularly in an open society committed to free speech. Molloy has a right to pretend he is a woman, and others have a right to acknowledge he is a man. He has a right to ask that others refer to him as a woman, and others have a right to refuse to speak lies. Molloy has no right to mandate that others pretend along with him that men can be women.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh points out the problems with pronoun diktats, which he opposes:

[W]hat if some people insist that their title is… “Your Holiness”?… [P]resumably the same logic that applies to gender-related self-chosen titles would apply to religion-related self-chosen titles. Both sex and religious discrimination are, after all, prohibited by the same laws…. The analogy [to “gender”-related pronoun mandates] would be if the government demanded that people have to be addressed using their own preferred race- or religion-linked titles—hypothetically, enforcing people’s demands that “you need to use the title ‘Sun Person’ when you refer to me, because I’m black,” or “you need to use the title ‘rav’ with me because I’m Jewish,” or “you need to use the title ‘friend’ with me because I’m a Quaker,” or “you need to address me as ‘thee’ rather than ‘you’ because I’m a Quaker.” 

While Molloy might find it degrading that others reject his faith-based assumptions about the nature, value, and meaning of biological sex, others find it degrading to be forced to pretend that his assumptions are true and good by being forced to use deceitful language.

Molloy muddies up the murky rhetorical waters even more when he claims that grammatically correct pronouns are “used to express disagreement with the legitimacy of trans lives and identities.” I can’t discern his meaning in the murk, so I’ll try to explain with clarity the real reasons grammatically correct pronouns are used.

Pronouns correspond to and denote objective biological sex, which has profound meaning. Sexual differentiation is the source of feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy when undressing and engaged in private bodily functions. Sexual differentiation is also foundational to marriage, childbearing, and childrearing. It is foundational to Judaism and Christianity. It is foundational to single-sex schools and competitive athletics. It is foundational to law enforcement and criminal justice, including prison assignments and public decency laws. It is foundational to health care. Sexual differentiation is real, and it matters. Using incorrect pronouns to refer to “trans”-identifying persons constitutes lying about an objective and deeply meaningful ontological reality. Using grammatically correct pronouns does not deny the existence of people who wish they had been born the opposite sex. It denies that they can be the sex they are not.

Molloy argues that those opposed to mis-sexing “see themselves as truth-tellers fighting against political correctness run amok.” He then ironically asserts that “voicing one’s personal ‘truth’ does just one thing: It shuts down conversation.” Did he hear himself?

Those who oppose incorrect-pronoun usage are not claiming “personal ‘truth.’” They’re acknowledging objective, scientific truth. It is Molloy who is voicing his “personal truth,” and quite literally trying to silence speech.

The ironies keep piling up. Next Molloy describes the absence of pronoun mandates as constituting a “content free-for-all” that “chills speech by allowing the dominant to control the parameters of debate, never letting discussion proceed past the pedantic obsession with names and pronouns.”

First, can there be better evidence that it is “trans”-cultists who have a pedantic obsession with pronouns than Molloy’s essay? Molloy demands ad nauseum which pronouns others must speak.

Second, Molloy’s argument here is a classic illustration of a question-begging fallacy. Pronoun-usage is the debate. To assert that everyone should just move on to the real debate assumes the proposed grammar revolution has been debated and settled. Just move on, you dominant conservatives, there’s nothing to debate here.

Molloy explains why he is reluctant to appear on television:

I wonder whether I’ll be able to discuss the day’s topic or whether I’m going to get roped into a debate over my own existence…. If this isn’t harassment, I don’t know what is.

How would this roping happen? Is Molloy suggesting that if a host or moderator were to use grammatically correct pronouns, Molloy couldn’t continue discussing the day’s topic? Why not? Would Molloy’s pedantic obsession with correctly sexed pronouns result in his refusal to discuss the day’s topic? If that’s what he meant, then he wouldn’t be “roped.” He would be tying himself up.

Molloy asserts that the use of grammatically correct (i.e., correctly sexed) pronouns constitutes harassment. But since mis-sexed pronouns embody moral, ontological, and political views, Molloy is implying that comity and respect require affirming all the beliefs and desires of others. Resist Molloy’s desires and stand guilty of harassment. Let’s add “harassment” to the growing list of terms the “LGBTQ” lexical pillagers have redefined.

Others view language mandates as harassment, and when fines or imprisonment is imposed for non-compliance, as has been done in New York City and California, the free flow of ideas is really impeded.

Molloy argues absurdly that,

Aside from the harm it does to trans people, it also impedes the free flow of ideas and debate, in the same way that conservatives often accuse student protesters of shutting down speech on college campuses. Sometimes, as the logic behind the campus speaker argument would dictate, we have to set parameters on speech if we want to actually have a debate on the issues.

By “it” in “it also impedes the free flow of ideas,” Molloy is referring (obsessively) to pronouns, suggesting that the refusal of television hosts to capitulate to his language rules—capitulation that would entail lying—is analogous to protesters shouting down speakers. Molloy says the use of pronouns he doesn’t like impedes the free flow of ideas and debates “in the say way” that drowning out speakers does. Really? In Molloy’s hypothetical television scenario, he chooses not to speak because he feels bad, whereas conservatives are trying to speak but being drowned out or disinvited.

Despite not establishing any points of correspondence between undesired pronoun-usage and screaming protestors or between his choice not to speak and conservative speakers’ inability to speak, Molloy goes on to say that what we’ve learned from these two (wholly different) scenarios is that we must set debate parameters. And the parameters Molloy thinks are not only just but necessary entail—you guessed it—acceding to Molloy’s begged question.

Molloy tries and fails again to construct a sound analogy. He points to an editorial in which Ben Shapiro argued that discussions about whether Trump’s actions or statements are racist are faulty if they start from the premise that he’s racist and, therefore, everything he says and does is racist. Shapiro says, “Perhaps Trump is a racist. Perhaps not.… But we can’t have a productive conversation that starts from the premise that Trump is a racist overall…. That conversation is about insults, not truth.”

Molloy responds,

Just as we can’t actually address the merits of any particular policy proposed by Mr. Trump if our focus is solely on the man himself, we can’t address the merits of policies that affect trans people if debate starts from the premise that trans people are and will always be whatever happens to be stamped on our original birth certificates. And as Mr. Shapiro notes, while there may or may not be truth to the statement that Mr. Trump is a racist, any discussion had through that lens will be “about insults, not truth.”

Molloy seems not to understand Shapiro’s point. Shapiro isn’t saying “Ignore the man. Just pay attention to his statements and policies.” He’s saying that presuming a character flaw—something we can’t know and is subjective—is unproductive. Evaluate instead, his statements and words.

The difference with the “trans” issue is that the premise Molloy wants us to elide is not an assumption about a character flaw. Being a biological male is a reality and saying so is not an insult.

The premise is a claim about the reality and meaning of an objective, constitutive feature of human beings and its meaning. The policies that Molloy prefers to discuss depend on answering the questions he wants to beg.

Molloy concludes by one last time implicitly begging readers to beg the question “Can men be women?” He introduces the Trump Administration’s possible clarification that the word “sex” in federal anti-discrimination policy refers to biological sex, a clarification that the “trans” cult ludicrously contends defines them out of existence. Molloy complained about the ensuing debate between “trans” cultists who oppose the change and conservatives who like it:

[T]he focus was almost universally on whether or not trans women are actually women and trans men are actually men. Rather than having a robust discussion about what practical effects a change to the Department of Health and Human Services definition of sex and gender might have… we found ourselves mired in the same stalemate.

Molloy desperately wants Americans to forgo a robust discussion of whether men can be women. He wants instead and only robust discussions of the practical effects of accepting his assumptions about biological sex. He acknowledges our responsibility as a “democratic public” to “hash out thorny policy issues,” but Molloy asserts we must set “guardrails for that conversation,” and those guardrails are based on his view that “trans”-identifying people are “not concepts, ideologies or philosophical questions to be pondered.” \

What a crock of sophistry. While people are not concepts, ideologies, or philosophical questions to be pondered, the choice to cross-dress, cross-sex-hormone-dope, mutilate healthy bodies, sexually integrate private spaces, and mandate grammatically incorrect pronoun-usage are justified by concepts and philosophical views that must be pondered and discussed openly and freely. Molloy might not want to discuss it, but one of the “practical effects” that is coming is the eradication of public recognition of sexual differentiation everywhere for everyone.

Don’t gobble up the baloney Molloy and his ideological compeers are serving to compel surrender to their cultural demands. And definitely don’t mis-sex people.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Baloney-Served-Up-by-Pretend-Woman.mp3

Save the Date!!!

On Saturday, March 16, 2019, the Illinois Family Institute will be hosting our annual Worldview Conference. This coming year, we will focus on the “transgender” revolution. We already have commitments from Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians; Walt Heyer, former “transgender” and contributor to Public Discourse; and Denise Schick, Founder and Director of Help 4 Families, and daughter of a man who “identified” as a woman.

The Transgender Ideology:
What Is It? Where Will It Lead? What is the Church’s Role?
Stay tuned for more information!

There is no hiding the ugliness of Louis Farrakhan’s latest antisemitic comments, in which he likened Jews to termites. There is one thing you do with termites. Exterminate them!

Termites are destructive. Termites are nasty. Termites survive by destroying. Termites do nothing good. Rid the earth of them!

My good friend, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, was therefore right to tweet this in response: “Louis Farrakhan calling Jews termites is a virtual call to genocide. The Nazis regularly referred to Jews as roaches and pests who needed to be exterminated. I call on African-American leaders like my close friend @CoryBooker to immediately condemn this vile and loathsome attack.”

These were Farrakhan’s exact words from a speech on October 14 in Detroit where he mocked his Jewish adversaries: “I can go anywhere in the world and they’ve heard of Farrakhan…I’m not mad at you, because you’re so stupid.”

Then, a little later in his speech, he said, “when they talk about Farrakhan, call me a hater, call me anti-Semite…I’m anti-Termite. I don’t know nothing about hating somebody because of their religious preference.”

He then reinforced his message with this tweet, linked to a video from his message: “I’m not an anti-Semite. I’m anti-Termite.”

Remarkably, Twitter has declined to act, leaving Farrakhan’s tweet intact. This is beyond crazy. This is immoral.

In 1943, the Nazis printed an educational pamphlet titled, “The Jew as World Parasite.” (In German, “Der Jude als Weltparasit.”)

It begins by saying:

“In this war for the very existence of the German people, we must daily remind ourselves that Jewry unleashed this war against us. It makes no difference if the Jew conceals himself as a Bolshevist or a plutocrat, a Freemason or uses some other form of concealment, or even appears without any mask at all: he always remains the same. He is the one who so agitated and spiritually influenced the peoples that stand against us today such that they have become more or less spineless tools of International Jewry.”

You can imagine just how ugly the whole pamphlet is.

Better still, don’t try to imagine. Just read it. How much Jewish blood was spilled because of these lies?

But this rhetoric is far from dead.

On January 2, 2018, BBC News reported that, “A self-proclaimed Nazi told gatherings of far-right activists that Jewish people were parasites who should be eradicated, a court has heard.”

On July 28, 2018, a headline in Haaretz stated, “’Jews Drink Blood:’ Britain’s Labour Party Suspends Councillor for Facebook Post.”

Reference was then made to Facebook posts containing language like this: “Talmud Jews are parasites! . . . All Talmuds need executing!”

Last year, on December 15, 2017, the Times of Israel reported that, “A professor emeritus from an esteemed university in the Netherlands whose father was a Nazi called Jews ‘parasites’ in a televised interview.”

Jan Tollenaere, described as “a lecturer on medicinal chemistry who retired from the Utrecht University in 2001, is the son of Raymond Tollenaere. His father “was in charge of propaganda for the Belgian pro-Nazi collaborationist government of Flanders during the German occupation of Belgium in World War II.”

According to Jan, “Jews ‘are not a nice people, I don’t feel any warmth toward them.’ They are, he added, ‘parasites, speculators and mean people.’”

Parasites should be exterminated!

They suck your blood and drain you and eat you alive.

They are obnoxious and insidious and hard to get rid of.

Special efforts must be taken to destroy them before they destroy you!

Such is the mentality of violent antisemitism. And with full knowledge and clear intent, Louis Farrakhan played right into this mentality by likening Jews to termites.

Shame on Twitter, infamous for its overzealous censoring of conservative views, for letting this tweet (and Farrakhan’s account) remain intact.

And shame on all people of conscience who do not distance themselves from such remarks. (Can  you be a person of conscience and not denounce them?)

It is spineless passivity like this that leads to the shedding of blood. Jewish blood.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

The hate business may not be what it used to be – at least on the government level.

The Defense Department has become the latest federal agency to sever ties with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an Alabama-based, hard-left group whose “hate map” is being used against Christian groups.

Well, bully for the Pentagon for showing that bully to the door.

The DOD’s pullback from the SPLC was reported by the Daily Caller, which said that a Justice Department attorney stated in an email that the DOD “removed any and all references to the SPLC in training materials used by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI).”

In 2014, the FBI dropped the SPLC from its resources page after congressional staff, acting on behalf of the Family Research Council (FRC) and other Christian groups on the “hate map,” met with FBI officials to discuss their concerns, according to the Daily Caller.

Once hailed for tracking the Ku Klux Klan and other extremists, the SPLC has in recent years been wielded against mainstream Christian organizations over their defense of Biblical sexual morality and marriage.

If you say out loud that men are different from women, you just took a big step toward the “hate map.”  If you say that marriage necessarily involves both sexes, bingo.  And if you say that it’s not loving to steer boys into identifying as girls, you might earn an SPLC mention alongside skinheads and Neo-Nazis.

The SPLC also targets those who oppose illegal immigration and those who believe Islamic expansionism is a threat to freedom.  All in all, the SPLC might want to consider changing its name to Hate, Inc.

In 2015, the SPLC placed presidential candidate Ben Carson, who now heads the Department of Housing and Urban Development, on an “extremist” hate watch list.  After taking considerable flak, the SPLC removed the citation and apologized to Dr. Carson.

But this guilt-by-association ploy is having a huge effect in Silicon Valley, where cyber giants who fancy themselves do-gooders look to the SPLC for guidance.

“Right now, [the SPLC is] cutting off hate groups from sources of financing by pushing digital companies like Amazon not to allow hate groups to use their services,” said SPLC’s founder, direct-mail wizard Morris Dees.

Google, Facebook and Twitter are under congressional scrutiny for allegedly “shadow banning” conservative and religious postings.

“The most dangerous aspect of this high-tech offensive on pro-faith groups and individuals is buried deep in the algorithms of these gatekeepers for the new economy,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel.

Google now supports a “hate news” database that links to articles referencing Liberty Counsel and other Christian groups on the SPLC “hate” list.  The SPLC’s smears have led Amazon Smile, a charity donation program run by Jeff Bezos’ Amazon company, to ban pro-family Christian groups.

Last year, Apple CEO Tim Cook announced a $1 million Apple donation to the SPLC and added a portal so iTunes buyers could donate directly. Big Tech, meet Big Hate.

The SPLC’s perfidy has led to “hate” labels on Christian groups listed in GuideStar, the charity group database, which removed some labels after a public outcry.  Discover/Diners Club is now blocking transactions with some pro-family groups, according to Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver.

Making false accusations of hate is profoundly hateful, but it’s also lucrative. The SPLC, which has raised millions since its 1971 founding, has fattened its endowment to more than $477 million, according to its latest Form 990.

In August 2017, D. James Kennedy Ministries, for which I have written several books, finally had had enough and filed a defamation lawsuit against the SPLC in Alabama and also sued GuideStar and Amazon.com, Inc.  The ministry withdrew the GuideStar suit but continued the other litigation.  Liberty Counsel also sued GuideStar, but that suit was thrown out last January by U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson, a Bill Clinton appointee.

In August 2012, Leo Johnson, the building manager at FRC headquarters in Washington, D.C., was shot while preventing an attempted mass murder by a man who said he was inspired by FRC’s presence on the SPLC’s “hate map.”

The shooter, Floyd Lee Corkins II, planned to kill as many people as possible and jam Chick-fil-A sandwiches into their faces to protest Chick-fil-A’s and FRC’s support for natural marriage.  He was sentenced to 25 years in prison in September 2013 for committing an act of terrorism while armed and other offenses.

Apparently, the SPLC did not find this compelling enough to remove FRC from its “hate map,” where it remained until very recently.  However, FRC – along with D. James Kennedy Ministries, the American Family Association, Alliance Defending Freedom, the Ruth Institute, the American College of Pediatricians and many other reputable Christian groups, along with the Jewish-led parents group MassResistance – is still listed on the SPLC’s “Hate Watch” page.

For pro-family activists, it’s become a badge of honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

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

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

Why is it that organizations like the SPLC can designate conservative Christians as hate groups while ignoring radical leftists like Antifa? Why is it that Facebook and Google and YouTube and Twitter appear to punish conservatives disproportionately for alleged violations of community guidelines?

The answer is as disturbing as it is simple. The left believes it is so morally and intellectually superior to the right that it can see nothing wrong with its extreme positions and hostile words. Is it wrong to be intolerant of bigots? Is it wrong to hate (or even punch) a Nazi?

In short, if I’m a member of the KKK, is it wrong for you to disparage and mock me? If I’m a dangerous homophobe, is it wrong for you to vilify and exclude me? If I’m a hate-filled propogandist spreading dangerous lies, is it wrong for you to mark me and marginalize me?

Of course, there are double standards on all sides of the debate, on the right as well as on the left. And there is more than enough hypocrisy to go around, from the most progressive to the most conservative.

All of us also have our share of blind spots, so we tend to condemn in others what we justify in ourselves. Welcome to human nature.

Still, it is conspicuous that the same behavior gets treated differently by the leftist elite (including many a university professor) and by watchdog groups like the SPLC and by the internet giants.

Back in 2004-05, when I first began to address gay activism, I was widely mocked for saying, “Those who came out of the closet want to put us in the closet.”

The response was consistent: “No one wants to put you in the closet!”

A few years back, I noticed a change in tone: “Bigots like you belong in the closet!”

But of course!

While being interviewed on a Christian TV program back in 2011, I quoted the comment of a Christian attorney. He told me that those who were once put in jail (speaking of pioneer gay activists) will want to put us in jail.

For having the audacity to say this on Christian TV, I was vilified and maligned.

Yet when Kim Davis was jailed in 2015 for refusing a court order to grant same-sex marriage licenses, there was widespread rejoicing on the left: “Kim Davis is ISIS! Lock her up!”

Again, I’m aware of double standards on all sides, and it’s a point of personal reflection and self-examination in my own life.

For example, I believed that, in 2004, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom should have been disciplined for issuing same-sex marriage licenses in violation of the law. Yet I believe that Kim Davis was within her rights in refusing to issue such licenses and her home state of Kentucky failed to protect her, under the law.

These are debates we can (and should) have.

What I’m talking about here has to do with fundamental attitudes, with the basis of our judgments, with the inability to see wrong on one’s own side. I’m talking about a dangerous hypocrisy. (For the record, I never compared Gavin Newsom to Muslim terrorists.)

In my May, 2016, article “Is Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg a Well-Intended Liberal with a Massive Blind Spot?”, I referenced the kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann, the notorious Nazi mass murderer, who was apprehended by two Israeli agents while living quietly with his family in Argentina.

They had to wait for several weeks before smuggling him out of the country, during which time they spent many hours in private conversation with him, somehow managing to restrain themselves from taking the law into their own hands.

During one of the conversations, one of the agents realized that Eichmann had given the order to exterminate the village in which his wife’s family lived, killing every single one of them.

When asked how he could do such a thing, Eichmann seemed perturbed, responding, “But they were Jews.”

Of course he gave the order to kill them. What else was he to do?

Again, to be clear, I am not comparing the SPLC or Facebook or Google to Eichmann and the Nazis. That would be as bad as leftists comparing conservatives to Nazis. Not a chance.

I’m simply pointing out that in Eichmann’s twisted world, he was only following orders and doing what was right.

So also, in Antifa’s twisted world (although, again, I emphasize, not as twisted as that of the Nazis), they are doing what is right in violently opposing the tyrannical right. Somebody’s got to do it!

Thankfully, there is an ongoing, healthy push-back against this liberal hypocrisy. In fact, just this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions called out the SPLC for using hate group labels to “bully” conservatives. Let their hypocrisy be exposed.

But remember: You have been prejudged as guilty, so your mistreatment is well-deserved.

It is this highly bigoted attitude we must overcome with truth, reason, determination, and love.

This article originally posted at Townhall.com.

Among the reasonable and fairly well-defined criteria Twitter uses to censor content is this more ambiguous criterion: content “that incites fear about a protected group” or that “degrades someone.”

Does Twitter think it’s degrading to say “homosexual acts degrade persons”? What if homosexual acts do degrade persons? What words constitute an incitement to fear? Does it incite “fear about a protected group” to say that allowing biological males in women’s private spaces is an assault on decency and puts at risk the safety of girls and women? Does Twitter think saying “polyamory is wrong, and its normalization harms society” would incite fear about polyamorists?

Similarly, Facebook includes this expansive and ambiguous definition of banned “hate speech”:

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability….We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech. (emphasis added)

Like obscenity (which Justice Potter believed he could recognize, but “progressives” clearly can’t), the powers-that-be at Facebook will apparently know dehumanizing speech when they see it.

This may explain why IFI has had so much trouble getting many of our articles boosted on Facebook. “Boosting” is, in effect, advertising. IFI pays Facebook to create an ad which is then shown to our target audience. The most recent article about which we have been battling Facebook is titled “Will ‘Progressives’ Affirm the Identity of Christ-Followers?”

We requested a boosted ad for this article and were declined. We appealed that decision, were approved for a few hours, and then our ad was taken down. We appealed that decision, were approved for a few more hours, and then the ad was taken down again. We appealed a third time, and moments before this writing, after a week and three appeals, it was approved. We wait with bated breath to see if this one sticks.

The criteria used by Twitter and Facebook to justify ideological-screening remind me of the criteria high school English teachers use to do the same. The text-selection criteria exploited by “progressive” change-agents in public high school English departments around the country are so flexible, so malleable, so protean as to justify including any resource that affirms, espouses, or embodies their biases and exclude any resource that dissents from their biases.

The Left is fond of declaiming that Twitter and Facebook are private companies that have the right to establish whatever criteria they deem fit for censoring content. True, but such a declamation ignores the monopolistic nature of these two social media behemoths.

Facebook has claimed to be a neutral social media platform that merely enables or facilitates “communication and distribution of information.” Because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, if Facebook were a neutral platform, it would not be liable for content. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is “US legislation that paved the way for the modern internet by asserting that platforms cannot be liable for content users post on their sites.”

But both in court and before Congress, Facebook has acknowledged it is a publisher and “responsible for content.” In conjunction with its shutting down accounts and censoring posts for what appear to be ideological reasons, Facebook may have lost its legal immunity. And maybe that’s just the slap upside Zuckerberg’s pecuniary noggin that’s needed to restore his commitment to a neutral platform and to protect the First Amendment rights of conservatives that are eroding right before our gullible, obsequious eyes.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Facebook-Censoring-Say-It-Aint-So.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

It’s often difficult to distinguish truth from satire on websites like The Onion and the Babylon Bee, and a few days ago many woke up to this headline:

Southern Poverty Law Center Apologizes for Mislabeling Group as Anti-Muslim Extremists, Agrees to $3.3M Settlement

But it’s a real news story, not a joke. It’s from Accuracy in Media, and here is a short excerpt from its report:

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has a history of flagging its political opponents as “extremists,” apologized to Muslim anti-terrorism group Quilliam and its founder Maajid Nawaz for wrongly naming them in their Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists…

The SPLC also agreed to pay a $3.375 million settlement, which Quilliam and Nawaz intend to use to fund work fighting anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism, according to a statement from the SPLC.

So the SPLC has actually admitted defamation, but only against one Muslim organization.

Here is what the Alliance Defending Freedom’s Jeremy Tedesco had to say in response to this news:

“It’s appalling and offensive for the Southern Poverty Law Center to compare peaceful organizations which condemn violence and racism with violent and racist groups just because it disagrees with their views. That’s what SPLC did in the case of Quilliam and its founder Maajid Nawaz, and that’s what it has done with ADF and numerous other organizations and individuals.

This situation confirms once again what commentators across the political spectrum have being saying for decades: SPLC has become a far-left organization that brands its political opponents as “haters” and “extremists” and has lost all credibility as a civil rights watchdog…

SPLC’s sloppy mistakes have ruinous, real-world consequences for which they should not be excused.”

National Review’s news writer Jack Crowe also posted on this news and following his article, a video was included that summarizes some of the SPLC’s outrageous defamation examples in 90 seconds.

The Washington Times reported this:

“A coalition of 45 prominent conservative groups and figures called Wednesday on those partnering with the Southern Poverty Law Center to sever their ties, saying the center’s credibility has been further eroded by this week’s defamation settlement.”

The coalition is also threatening a lawsuit against the SPLC and issued warnings to CEOs and news editors who are complicit in the defamation by citing the group’s anti-Christian bias. Here is the text of the joint statement which was also signed by the Illinois Family Institute’s executive director David E. Smith:

JOINT STATEMENT BY ORGANIZATIONS DEFAMED BY THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER

We, the undersigned, are among the organizations, groups and individuals that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has maligned, defamed and otherwise harmed by falsely describing as “haters,” “bigots,” “Islamophobes” and/or other groundless epithets. We are gratified that the SPLC has today formally acknowledged that it has engaged in such misrepresentations.

In an out-of-court settlement announced today, the Southern Poverty Law Center formally apologized in writing and via video for having falsely listed Maajid Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation as “anti-Muslim extremists” in one of the SPLC’s most notorious products, The Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. It also agreed to pay them $3.375 million, tangible proof that the SPLC, which amounts to little more than a leftist instrument of political warfare against those with whom it disagrees, fully deserves the infamy it has lately earned. For example, in addition to its settlement with Nawaz and Quilliam, the organization has had to disavow multiple misstatements and other errors in its reporting in the past few months.

Journalists who uncritically parrot or cite the SPLC’s unfounded characterizations of those it reviles do a profound disservice to their audiences.

Editors, CEOs, shareholders and consumers alike are on notice: anyone relying upon and repeating its misrepresentations is complicit in the SPLC’s harmful defamation of large numbers of American citizens who, like the undersigned, have been vilified simply for working to protect our country and freedoms.

With this significant piece of evidence in mind, we call on government agencies, journalists, corporations, social media providers and web platforms (i.e., Google, Twitter, YouTube and Amazon) that have relied upon this discredited organization to dissociate themselves from the Southern Poverty Law Center and its ongoing effort to defame and vilify mainstream conservative organizations.

The list of signatories can be read following the statement here.

It is also interesting to note this update on the SPLC’s finances from the The Washington Free Beacon:

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a left-wing nonprofit known for its “hate group” designations, now has $92 million in offshore investment funds, according to financial statements…

The controversial organization reported $477 million in total assets and $132 million in contributions on its most recent tax forms, which cover Nov. 1, 2016 to Oct. 31, 2017. That represents an increase of $140 million in its total assets from the previous year. Millions flowed to the group following the deadly Charlottesville, Va. attacks from employees at companies including JP Morgan Chase and Apple as well as from actors such as George Clooney.

Google, Twitter, YouTube, Amazon, JP Morgan Chase, Apple, and evidently the SPLC’s itself represent some “deep pockets” when it comes to potential lawsuits and settlements.

A Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) investigation discovered that the left-wing nonprofit is closely tied to four of the largest tech platforms on the planet, which routinely consult or collaborate with the SPLC in policing their platforms for “hate groups” or “hate speech,” and the findings were corroborated by Facebook itself.

“[The SPLC is on a list of] external experts and organizations [that Facebook works with] to inform our hate speech policies,” Facebook Spokeswoman Ruchika Budhraja informed the DCNF in an interview.

Facing users away from the right

Budhraja explained how outside groups are consulted by Facebook through one to three meetings in order to fashion its hate speech policies, but she would not name which specific organizations it worked with and insisted that they represent all political affiliations.

She then used a May 8 SPLC article that accused Facebook of inadequately censoring “anti-Muslim hate” in an attempt to prove the social media giant does not fully submit to the SPLC.

“We have our own process, and our processes are different and, I think, that’s why we get the criticism [from the SPLC], because organizations that are hate organizations by their standards don’t match ours,” Budhraja insisted, according to the DCNF. “That doesn’t mean that we don’t have a process in place, and that definitely doesn’t mean we want the platform to be a place for hate, but we aren’t going to map to the SPLC’s list or process.”

Following right-leaning users’ numerous complaints over the years about the bias of Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube, dozens of nationally renowned conservative leaders banded against the Internet platforms last month by issuing a statement condemning them for their censorship and suppression of conservative speech.

“Social media censorship and online restriction of conservatives and their organizations have reached a crisis level,” their joint statement read, according to Newsbusters. “Conservative leaders now have banded together to call for equal treatment on tech and social media.”

At the time, the SPLC was already suspected for contributing to the platforms’ liberal bias.

“The participants called for the tech giants to address the key areas of complaint, including lack of transparency, when removing content and deleting accounts and the imbalance of liberal content advisers – such as the Southern Poverty Law Center,” Fox News reported.

Amazon and the SPLC – a perfect left match

But Amazon trumps Facebook when it come to collaborating with the SPLC.

“Of the four companies, Amazon gives the SPLC the most direct authority over its platform, the DCNF found,” the DCNF’s Peter Hasson reported. “While Facebook emphasizes its independence from the SPLC, Amazon does the opposite: Jeff Bezos’ company grants the SPLC broad policing power over the Amazon Smile charitable program, while claiming to remain unbiased.”

In fact, an Amazon spokeswoman announced where the Internet giant gets its final word, but she would not say whether her company considers its leftist source as being unbiased.

“We remove organizations that the SPLC deems as ineligible,” the company’s spokeswoman told the DCNF. “[Amazon grants the SPLC that power] because we don’t want to be biased whatsoever.”

One of Amazon’s charitable programs under scrutiny for being in cahoots with the SPLC’s political agenda was targeted.

“The Smile program allows customers to identify a charity to receive 0.5 percent of the proceeds from their purchases on Amazon,” Hasson pointed out. “Customers have given more than $8 million to charities through the program since 2013, according to Amazon. Only one participant in the program, the SPLC, gets to determine which other groups are allowed to join it.”

It was found that the Smile program frowns upon conservatives, Christians and Jews, alike.

“Christian legal groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom – which recently successfully represented a Christian baker at the U.S. Supreme Court – are barred from the Amazon Smile program, while openly anti-Semitic groups remain, the DCNF found in May,” Hasson noted. “One month later, the anti-Semitic groups – but not the Alliance Defending Freedom – are still able to participate in the program.”

Another excuse was also given by Amazon for the way it directs its users to charities using its own – and the SPLC’s – standards and criteria.

“Charitable organizations must meet the requirements outlined in our participation agreement to be eligible for AmazonSmile,” an Amazon spokesperson told Fox News. “Organizations that engage in, support, encourage or promote intolerance, hate, terrorism, violence, money laundering or other illegal activities are not eligible. If at any point an organization violates this agreement, its eligibility will be revoked. Since 2013, Amazon has relied on the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control and the Southern Poverty Law Center to help us make these determinations. While this system has worked well, we do listen to and consider the feedback of customers and other stakeholders, which we will do here as well.”

Tweeting for the SPLC

The other social media giant also determines its enemies and allies, according to the SPLC.

“Twitter lists the SPLC as a ‘safety partner’ working with Twitter to combat ‘hateful conduct and harassment,’” Hassan impressed. “The platform also includes the Trust and Safety Council, which ‘provides input on our safety products, policies and programs,’ according to Twitter. Free speech advocates have criticized it as Orwellian.”

Twitter admitted it worked with some social policy groups, but would not single out the SPLC.

“[Twitter is] in regular contact with a wide range of civil society organizations and [nongovernmental organizations],” a Twitter spokeswoman told the DCNF.

Googly over the SPLC

And the world’s biggest web browser also taps into the SPLC’s political profiling scheme.

“Google uses the SPLC to help police hate speech on YouTube as part of YouTube’s ‘Trusted Flagger’ program … citing a source with knowledge of the agreement, [and] following that report, the SPLC confirmed [in March that] they’re policing hate speech on YouTube,” Hassan recounted. “The SPLC and other third-party groups in the ‘Trusted Flagger’ program work closely with YouTube’s employees to crack down on extremist content in two ways, according to YouTube.”

The strategic process effectively weeds out conservatives so users can get their fill of leftist content.

“First, the flaggers are equipped with digital tools allowing them to mass flag content for review by YouTube personnel,” he continued. “Second, the groups act as guides to YouTube’s content monitors and engineers who design the algorithms policing the video platform, but may lack the expertise needed to tackle a given subject.”

But this underhanded scheme has gone virtually undetected – with good reason.

“The SPLC is one of over 300 government agencies and nongovernmental organizations in the YouTube program – the vast majority of which remain hidden behind confidentiality agreements,” Hassan divulged.

The SPLC’s fake labels abound

Adding insult to injury, the SPLC has a track record showing that its designations are based more on left-leaning sentiments and emotions than on fact.

“The SPLC has consistently courted controversy in publishing lists of ‘extremists’ and ‘hate groups,’” the DCNF reporter maintained. “The nonprofit has been plagued by inaccuracies this year, retracting four articles in March and April alone.”

The SPLC’s anti-Trump agenda was recently exposed when it had to retract a series of its stories a few months ago.

“The well-funded nonprofit – which did not return a request for comment – deleted three Russia-related articles in March after challenges to their accuracy followed by legal threats,” Hassan recalled. “All three articles focused on drawing conspiratorial connections between anti-establishment American political figures and Russian influence operations in the United States.”

Its pro-Muslim bias was exposed the following month.

“The SPLC removed a controversial ‘anti-Muslim extremist’ list in April, after British Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz threatened to sue over his inclusion on the list,” Hassan continued. “The SPLC had accused the supposed-extremists of inciting anti-Muslim hate crimes.”

Those who have been vocal against Islamic Sharia law and Muslim militancy have regularly been targeted by the SPLC – including Somali-born women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who also made SPLC’s list.

“Ali – a victim of female genital mutilation who now advocates against the practice – is an award-winning human rights activist, but according to the SPLC’s since-deleted list, she was an ‘anti-Muslim extremist,’” Hassan informed.

Last August, Ali condemned Apple CEO Tim Cook for donating major funds to the SPLC and described the leftist nonprofit the following way:

“[The SPLC is] an organization that has lost its way, smearing people who are fighting for liberty and turning a blind eye to an ideology and political movement that has much in common with Nazism,” Ali declared, according to the DCNF.

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Dr. Benjamin Carson was emblazoned on the SPLC’s “extremist watch list” in 2015 because his political worldview aligns with conservatives.

“When embracing traditional Christian values is equated to hatred, we are approaching the stage where wrong is called right and right is called wrong,” the neurosurgeon Carson proclaimed on Facebook after discovering his name on SPLC’s list. “It is important for us to, once again, advocate true tolerance. That means being respectful of those with whom we disagree and allowing people to live according to their values without harassment. It is nothing but projectionism when some groups label those who disagree with them as haters.”

It took four months of backlash from conservatives for the SPLC to apologize and remove the “extremist” label from the 2016 Republican presidential candidate, who is now serving under the Trump administration.

And there have been severe consequences to the SPLC’s intentional mislabeling, as witnessed six years ago.

“Floyd Lee Corkins – who attempted a mass shooting at the conservative Family Research Center in 2012 – said he chose the organization for his act of violence because the SPLC listed them as a ‘hate group,’” Hassan noted.

Anyone or any group not aligned with the SPLC’s ultra-leftist ideas is a prime candidate for the nonprofit’s smear campaign, and its credibility has been challenged on a regular basis.

“The SPLC receives criticism from across the political spectrum for its smearing of conservative and centrist individuals and organizations,” Breitbart News reported.

As a result of the smears, some nonprofit organizations are hit financially by receiving less contributions.

“Conservative groups, like the Alliance Defending Freedom, also face regular smears by the SPLC,” Breitbart’s Allum Bokhari stressed. “As a result, they are barred from Amazon’s charity program.”

Even former President Barack Obama at one time chastised the SPLC for its extremist agenda.

“The far-left Southern Poverty Law Center was [even] too extreme for the Obama administration – but it’s just fine for Silicon Valley,” Fox News commented. “The Obama-era Justice Department once scolded the SPLC for overstepping ‘the bounds of zealous advocacy,’ after the organization labeled the non-profit Federation for American Immigration Reform a ‘hate group.’”

This article was originally published at OneNewsNow.com