In an alarming May 24, 2020 article titled “Scoop: Inside the Secret Talks to Overhaul the GOP Platform,” published by Axios, political reporter Jonathan Swan exposed the behind-the-scenes efforts of the socially liberal son-in-law of President Trump, Jared Kushner, to change the GOP platform so that it reflects Democrat views. While the radical overhaul of the GOP platform—and, therefore, the GOP—is the brainless-child of Kushner, the nitty gritty of the subversive project has been assigned to Bill Stepien, second in command for Trump’s re-election campaign, just under Brad Parscale.

According to Swan, Kushner has been working on this secret “radical overhaul” of the GOP platform with Trump’s campaign officials for the past six months. This radical overhaul includes reducing the size of the platform from 58 pages to 1 page, a perhaps Herculean task but otherwise untroubling. Who doesn’t like brevity?

No, it’s not Kushner’s desire to reduce the platform’s size that should concern conservatives. It’s what he seeks to eliminate that should raise the antennae and hackles of conservatives. I bet those with culturally sensitive antennae have already guessed what socially “progressive” Kushner wants to jettison.

But before we get to that, let’s take a moment to reflect on another subversive project of Kushner’s: criminal justice reform. Daniel Horowitz more accurately refers to it as “federal jailbreak legislation,” and he places Kushner at the center of the effort to set criminals loose in our communities. Remember Kushner’s role in this as you watch thugs loot and burn down American cities.

Swan reports that in a December 2019 meeting, Kushner told his band of revolutionaries—that is, both “senior White House and campaign staff”—that  “more of their policies should be drawing people to the party, so they ought to eliminate alienating language.” So far, so good. The GOP should aim for non-alienating language in its platform.

Ah, but there’s the rub. Kushner doesn’t mean profane, obscene, harsh, boorish, or hateful language. He means language that expresses principles, values, beliefs, or assumptions regarding sexuality that “progressive” Americans hate.

Swan makes clear Kushner’s intent:

As an example of language that would alienate voters, Kushner said that he didn’t want to see anything about “gay conversion therapy” in the 2020 Republican platform. The 2016 Republican platform did not explicitly mention gay conversion therapy, but it included this line: “We support the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children.” Gay Republicans were furious because they viewed it, accurately, as a coded endorsement for the widely condemned practice that’s rejected by major medical associations and whose use on minors is banned in many states and some other countries.

Can’t have any “language” that infuriates “gay Republicans” now, can we. According to Kushner, their fury dictates Republican policy.

Space does not permit a discussion here of what is either ignorantly or deceitfully identified as “gay conversion therapy” in order to ban all forms of counseling to help those who experience unchosen, unwanted homoerotic attraction. That will have to wait for another day.

What’s most important to note is that Kushner wants to eliminate language that supports the right of parents to decide what kind of therapy or treatment their same-sex attracted or gender-dysphoric children receive. This should trouble every parent who believes they—not the state or leftist-controlled medical and mental health organizations that have abandoned both common sense and science—know what’s best for their own children.

Let’s hope the presumptuous, unelected Kushner doesn’t pursue a secret project to eliminate other “alienating language,” because there is a boatload of alienating language in the GOP platform.

You know what else alienates and infuriates homosexual RINOs? This language in the GOP platform really chaps their hide:

Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a ‘judicial Putsch.’

You know what alienates Americans who cheer abortion? They’re alienated by this language from the GOP platform:

we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. … We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare.

You know what alienates those who believe the U.S. Constitution is an infinitely flexible document with no fixed meaning or who think it’s hopelessly outdated? This language in the GOP Platform alienates them:

the Constitution was written not as a flexible document, but as our enduring covenant.

You know what alienates those who support “progressive” judicial activism? This language in the GOP platform alienates them:

A critical threat to our country’s constitutional order is an activist judiciary that usurps powers properly reserved to the people through other branches of government. Only a Republican president will appoint judges who respect the rule of law expressed within the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including the inalienable right to life and the laws of nature and nature’s God.

You know what alienates Americans who think the world is ending in 12 years? They’re alienated by this language in the GOP platform:

The Democratic Party’s campaign to smother the U.S. energy industry takes many forms, but the permitting process may be its most damaging weapon. … We support the development of all forms of energy that are marketable in a free economy without subsidies, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and hydropower.

You know what alienates those who want universal healthcare? They’re alienated by this language in the GOP platform:

Any honest agenda for improving healthcare must start with repeal of the dishonestly named Affordable Care Act of 2010: Obamacare.

You know what alienates those who favor open borders? They’re alienated by this language in the GOP platform:

Illegal immigration endangers everyone, exploits the taxpayers, and insults all who aspire to enter America legally. We oppose any form of amnesty for those who, by breaking the law, have disadvantaged those who have obeyed it.

Kushner doesn’t really seek to “eliminate alienating language.” He seeks to eliminate language that reflects assumptions, beliefs, values, and principles that he opposes. If he agrees with the assumptions, beliefs, values, and principles reflected in the GOP platform, he’s A-OK with “alienating language.”

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact the Republican National Committee to urge them to protect the 2016 GOP platform from liberal activists. There is no need to radically redevelop the GOP platform. Keeping the strong planks for the sanctity of human life, traditional marriage and family are nonnegotiable.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Jared-Kushner-The-Wolf-in-Sheeps-Clothing-Hovering-Too-Near-Trump.mp3

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

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

Three Points to Draw out of the Flag-Kneeling Spectacles in Sports

“Psh … I’m not going to the f***in’ White House,” sneered U.S. Women’s National soccer team co-captain Megan Rapinoe, barely letting the reporter finish his question. “No, I’m not going to the White House,” she said again, just in case there was any doubt.

This took place before the team had won its fourth World Cup championship amid sophomoric Twitter squabbles between Rapinoe, her lesbian girlfriend Sue Bird, and President Trump over Rapinoe’s national anthem protests. In 2016, she’d followed Colin Kaepernick in kneeling during the national anthem until the U.S. Soccer Federation adopted a policy requiring players to stand, at which point she complied but stood silently with her arms at her side. She says she does so to draw attention to inequality in the U.S.

Now, for those of us who don’t particularly sympathize with her manner of woke protest, there are a few ways we might respond. One way would be to go tribal and call her some name or insult her as a person. Such ad hominem attacks litter the online world, and although they can be entertaining in a schadenfreude kind of way, they don’t tend to build bridges in ideologically divided times. Another way would be to simply ignore the affront, denying it the attention it surely craves. While more honorable, this deprives the public of alternative points of view.

Here’s another way. It’s peaceable and potentially edifying for all, and it only requires knowing a little political history.

Revolutions, Right and Left

The American Revolution: More accurately called the American War for Independence, historians date the beginning of this conflict to 1765, when Great Britain’s Stamp Act imposed a direct tax on the colonies and the colonists said, “No.” “No taxation without representation,” to be specific. Had Parliament accepted this principled “No,” the conflict would have ended right there.

Instead, Parliament doubled down until, as most of us in America recently celebrated, the colonies put pen to paper and issued a bill of separation. That “putting pen to paper” is highly significant. Make note of what the authors did. They: (1) stated what they were doing, (2) stated why they were doing it, and (3) appealed to God and Natural Law as their witness and judge. England again declined to accept “No,” and war ensued until the new nation prevailed. It is unfortunate that blood was shed, but the Americans deemed their cause noble, and two centuries of their posterity have been its beneficiaries.

The French Revolution: A historical minute later, on July 14, 1789, an unruly mob stormed a military garrison in Paris and seized some 32,000 muskets, along with cannons and munitions. This exercise in “street politics” set in motion a decade of bloodshed and social dissolution ending in absolute dictatorship under Napoleon Bonaparte.

The contrasts between the two could not be more stark. The founders of America drew from Enlightenment ideals while retaining as their grounding the basic principles of the biblical worldview. The Declaration of Independence presupposed the existence of God and Natural Law. The aggressor was King George III, and the Declaration was an attempt to resolve their dispute with him peacefully using principled, rational argumentation.  This is how the political Right works.

The French Revolution was an entirely different animal. It, too, drew from Enlightenment ideals, but its prosecutors summarily rejected God and therefore dispensed with any transcendent foundation for reason or morality. The aggressors were mobs, might made right, and no one came out better for it. This is how the Left operates.

Illuminating the Woke

Here’s how to tie this history to the flag-kneeling and other expression of woke pseudo-virtue. First, to the extent the protest is nonviolent, we should commend the nonviolence. Restraint of expression is consistent with conservative principles and inconsistent with the Left. Point that out.

Second, Ms. Rapinoe’s very act of publicly snubbing her home country and saying “No” (“F*** off!” to be more specific) to its chief executive demonstrates that she does, in fact, enjoy political equality of the highest order. The First Amendment affords her that privilege, which she may exercise without fear of state reprisal. The First Amendment, too, is consistent with the Right and inconsistent with the Left, which observes an “end justifies the means” hierarchy of values. Point that out.

And third, to the extent possible, we should invite people to articulate in words exactly what their grievance is. And it must be defended by reference to some transcendent moral principle. Rapinoe sympathizers, for example, could be invited to explain the criteria by which she (or anyone) has unequal standing under law.

This will pose significant challenges for the benighted woke, because when you drill down to the principles of the grievances du jour, the principles leftists rely on are only traceable to the conservative side of the American equation. It is the Right that seeks to conserve these principles. The Left has no principles, because principles do not exist in a Machiavellian order. It’s only “might makes right.” Look especially for ways to point that out.

Conservatives have to be the ones venturing out these ideological bridges, because the passive-aggressive woke are too busy protesting their non-aggressive opponents, most of whom actually do accept “No” for an answer.

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.

On July 27, 2017 a judge made the final decision in the case of Charlie Gard, ordering that the infant be moved to hospice for his last days on this earth. Charlie was one of 16 known children in the world to have mitochondrial depletion syndrome. This condition is a very rare terminal illness  which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.

This decision followed the determination of the hospital that he would be better off dead. The European Court of Human Rights backed this decision. According to BBC News the court determined that further treatment would “continue to cause Charlie significant harm:”

European Court judges have now concluded it was most likely Charlie was “being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress” and undergoing experimental treatment with “no prospects of success… would offer no benefit”.

They said the application presented by the parents was “inadmissible” and said the court’s decision was “final.”

The legal battle to protect the life of little Charlie Gard began on March 3, 2017 when a Justice from the Family Division of the High Court in London held a hearing to analyze Charlie’s case. On April 11, Justice Francis subsequently decided that the hospital could stop Charlie’s life support. On May 3, Charlie’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, appealed the decision of Justice Francis but the appeal was analyzed on May 23 and dismissed on May 25. On June 8, the parent’s appeal at the Supreme Court also failed. The family’s lawyers then appealed the case to the European Court of Human Rights on June 20. That Court refused to stop Charlie’s death at the hands of socialized medicine, despite the fact that Charlie’s parents had raised millions of dollars for experimental treatment in the United States. Multiple hospitals, including a Vatican hospital offered to take in Charlie but a High Court ruled against Charlie leaving the Great Ormond Street Hospital, instead saying he should be “allowed to die with dignity.”

“We are utterly heartbroken,” Charlie’s parents said in a June 29 Facebook post the day before Charlie was to die, “spending our last precious hours with our baby boy. We’re not allowed to choose if our son lives and we’re not allowed to choose when or where Charlie dies. We and most importantly Charlie have been massively let down throughout this whole process. Charlie will die tomorrow knowing that he was loved by thousands… thank you to everyone for all your support.”

According to CNN:

Under British law, parental responsibility includes the right to give consent for medical treatment, according to the British Medical Association.

However, parental rights are not absolute, and in cases in which doctors and parents disagree, the courts may exercise objective judgment in a child’s best interest.

Anytime government can usurp parental rights, it is a slippery slope, but this especially rings true when a life is at stake. Even though Charlie Gard’s case was certainly a life-threatening condition, his parents still had hope that the experimental treatment offered in the United States would have helped alleviate Charlie’s suffering and give Charlie a legitimate chance at life. Sadly, Charlie was not given that chance. According to WND, in response “a team of experts on parental rights, and related child rights, is asking President Trump to get the United States out of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child:”

The group’s letter to the White House said, “The Charlie Gard situation highlights the stark difference between our national values and those of internationalists who believe that government bureaucrats and the courts should decide how children should be raised, and even whether a life is worth living.”

The HSLDA notes that the Clinton administration signed the convention, but it never was ratified by the Senate.

HSLDA’s William Estrada explained, “When courts and medical authorities in England can overrule parents’ wishes and declare it is in the best interest of a child to let him die, it’s time to redouble efforts to protect parental rights here in America.”

The letter written to Trump by HSLDA rightfully states the belief “that life is precious and that parents, not the government, know best how to protect and care for their children.”

The United States has been the leader of the free world on the issue of human rights, and this must continue. With the case of Charlie Gard, critical time was wasted in legal battles when Charlie was left languishing to die in the Great Ormond Street Hospital If the United States ever ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, cases like Charlie’s would easily begin taking place in the United States.

“We just want some peace with our son – no hospital, no lawyers, no courts, no media, just quality time with Charlie –away from everything to say goodbye to him in the most loving way,” Yates expressed on Thursday, according to a CNN report posted by Fox 8. “Mummy and Daddy love you so much, Charlie, we always have and we always will and we are so sorry that we couldn’t save you. We had the chance, but we weren’t allowed to give you that chance. Sweet dreams, baby. Sleep tight, our beautiful little boy.”

Written by Ravi Zacharias

President Barack Obama’s address at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 5, 2015 has reverberated through the corridors of the world and provoked shock and dismay in numerous quarters. Even a professor at the University of London commented on his shallow understanding of the Crusades. I hesitated to write anything on the subject because it would drag me into politics or into a sobering critique of Islam. I am not sure that at a time like this either distraction would be wise, so let me keep it to the minimum.

For those who did not hear the talk, it is sufficient to say that it was the most ill-advised and poorly chosen reprimand ever given at a National Prayer Breakfast. I have been to several and have never, ever heard such absence of wisdom in a setting such as this. ‎I wasn’t at this one but have heard the speech often enough to marvel at the motivation for such thoughts. President Obama basically lectured Christians not to get on a moral high horse in their castigation of the ISIS atrocities by reminding them that the Crusades and slavery were also justified in the name of Christ.

Citing the Crusades, he used the single most inflammatory word he could have with which to feed the insatiable rage of the extremists. That is exactly what they want to hear to feed their lunacy.  ‎In the Middle East, history never dies and words carry the weight of revenge.

There is so much I would love to say in response but shall refrain. The President obviously does not understand the primary sources of either faith for him to make such a tendentious parallel. The predominant delight in his remarks would be in the Muslim world and the irreligious. The next day Geraldo Rivera, opining favorably, made the oft repeated lie that more people have been killed in the name of God than in any other cause.

Try telling that to the Chinese and the Russians and the Cambodians and the victims of the Holocaust! ‎Such intellectual ignorance gains the microphone with pitiable privilege. If a thinking person doesn’t know the difference between the logical outworkings of a philosophy and the illogical ones, to say nothing of the untruth perpetrated, then knowledge has been sacrificed at the altar of prejudice.

But let me get to the President’s final statement, after he had wandered off into erroneous territory. That final remark was true. He said, “It is sin that leads us to distort reality.” He was right. In fact he embodied it in his talk. But there is good news for the President. At least in the Christian message forgiveness is offered for sin. In Islam it isn’t. You must earn it. May I dare suggest that if Christians had been burning Muslims and be-heading them, he would have never dared to go to Saudi Arabia and tell them to get off their high horse. He unwittingly paid a compliment to those who preach grace and forgiveness. That is the dominant theme of the Gospel. That is why we sit in courtesy listening to the distortion of truth, the abuse of a privilege, and the wrong-headedness of a message.

I cannot recall when I have heard such inappropriate words at so important an occasion, in such a time of crisis. The world is burning with fear and apprehension. We need a message that will inspire and encourage and redeem. Ironically, two years ago when Dr. Ben Carson spoke and made some comments about our medical plan and the tax system, the White House demanded an apology from him for straying into controversial terrain, because it felt his comments showed disrespect for the President.

This year’s National Prayer Breakfast speech was a blunder in thought. But there was a silver lining. In the end, President Obama blundered into the truth. Sin distorts… and only Jesus Christ restores the truth. Christ will ever rise up to outlive His pallbearers. Even presidents will have to get off their high horses then and recognize the Lord of life and hope and peace. There will be no speech making then. Only a prayer of surrender… which is what the National Prayer Breakfast was meant to be in the first place.

Originally published at RZIM.org.