By Brittany Smith, World Magazine

President Barack Obama makes it sound as if there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries. “Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires,” the president said Sept. 19.

The data tell a different story, though. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government research. The wealthy pay at a higher rate, and as a group they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

In his White House address Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the “Buffett rule,” named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who said he wanted to be taxed more.

Obama’s rule says, “People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay.”

The problem with the Obama-Buffet tax hike is that there are some important facts missing. “When Buffett receives dividends and capital gains, it is true that he pays ‘only’ 15 percent of that money on his tax return,” said Dan Mitchell, a tax policy analyst for The Cato Institute. “But dividends and capital gains are both forms of double taxation. So, if he wants honest effective tax rate numbers, he needs to show the 35 percent corporate tax rate.”

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. But most will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently announced a new and onerous mandate which will force all health insurance policies to pay for free contraception without co-pays or co-insurance, including every “birth control” drug or device approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This means that every health insurance plan will be required to cover “emergency contraceptives” or “morning-after pills” such as Plan B. These abortifacient drugs act to break down the lining of the uterus so that it is either unreceptive to implantation by a fertilized ovum or unable to sustain an implanted embryo — killing a newly conceived human being.

The primary purpose of contraception is not to treat any disease or illness but to prevent the creation of human life. Why should every American be forced to subsidize the destruction of human life through abortifacients especially when there is a more effective and surer way to avoid unwanted pregnancies — abstinence? Why should Americans have to pay for sexual risk-taking or irresponsible behavior?

It is simply outrageous for the government to compel citizens to pay premiums to subsidize a drug many find morally objectionable.

Media reports claim that the Obama administration has incorporated an amendment to the new regulations that permit religious institutions that provide health insurance coverage to exempt themselves from the contraceptive mandate. But if you don’t happen to work for a religious institution, you have no individual conscience rights.

A bill has been introduced in the U.S. Congress to protect the conscience rights of Americans who do not want their health insurance premiums to pay for abortion-inducing drugs. The “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011” (H.R. 1179) was introduced by U.S. Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) in mid-March of this year. It is co-sponsored by 36 other Congressmen, including Illinois’ Jerry Costello (D-Belleville) and Daniel Lipinski (D-Chicago).

Take ACTION: Contact your U.S. Representative to object to the mandate by HHS that will require pro-life citizens across the nation to pay for abortifacient drugs. Then urge your Congressman to support H.R. 1179, the “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act.”

Note: IFI recently sent a letter to the pro-life Illinois Congressional Delegation asking them to sign on as co-sponsors of the bill.

Read more:

Support Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Family Research Council (FRC) praised the U.S. House of Representatives today for overwhelmingly approving U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx’s (R-NC) amendment to the 2012 defense appropriations bill that would prohibit using Pentagon funds in contradiction of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman for all federal purposes.

Of the vote FRC President Tony Perkins, a Marine Corps veteran, said:

“A bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives has overwhelmingly reaffirmed marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This resounding support for the Defense of Marriage Act is a reflection of the views of more than six in ten Americans and the 40 million voters in 31 states who have approved constitutional amendments preserving marriage.

“The House vote sends a clear signal to the courts that the issue of homosexuals serving openly in the military is far from resolved. The House has also rejected the Obama administration’s continual circumvention of federal marriage law.

“President Obama’s Department of Justice is not fulfilling its constitutional duty to defend the laws of the United States by prodding the courts to engage in judicial activism as it seeks to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. However, the Department of Justice’s unethical intervention is without support from Congress or the American people.

“We thank Rep. Virginia Foxx for her leadership on this issue, and the 19 Democrats who joined a huge majority of Republicans in affirming that federal law trumps the demands of those who would use the military to advance a liberal social agenda,” concluded Perkins.

CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Darin Miller, (866) FRC-NEWS or (866)-372-6397

via Family Research Council

Written By Dr. Mark G. Neerhof

The battle in Washington will determine if it is you – or bureaucrats

In a chapter titled “Who, Whom?” from his classic book “The Road to Serfdom,” F. A. Hayek warned of the universal problem of a socialist society: “Who plans whom, who directs and dominates whom, who assigns to other people their station in life, and who is to have his due allotted by others?”

The budget battle currently under way in Washington is about much more than money and debt. It is about who we are as a people and what we are to become. This struggle is epitomized in the discussion over Medicare.

On the one hand, Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, has suggested that beginning in 2022, seniors would receive a premium each year to purchase private health insurance from a list of approved plans. This is essentially the same health insurance system that federal employees receive. The roughly $15,000 premium that seniors would receive is the equivalent to what Medicare is projected to spend per individual under Obamacare. Recipients would be means-tested and the amount they receive would be adjusted for inflation. The difference in this approach is that it puts patients in control of their own health care decisions by allowing them to choose the insurance coverage that best fits their needs. The resulting competition among the private insurers is likely to lead to better cost control compared to a government-run program such as Medicare.

President Obama has castigated the Ryan plan as a “radical” plan that would violate our “social contract.” And this is from a president who, just before his election, boasted that “we are just five days away from fundamentally transforming America.”

Obamacare, on the other hand, cuts $468 billion from Medicare – a program that already has $38 trillion in unfunded obligations. The cuts come primarily from decreases in reimbursement to physicians and hospitals. Caring for Medicare patients already is a losing proposition for many physicians and hospitals. With further cuts in reimbursements, Medicare estimates that within 10 years, 15 percent of hospitals will go out of business. This will leave many seniors with an insurance card but no physicians or hospitals to care for them.

Obamacare also puts in place a cost-cutting panel called the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Mr. Obama highlighted the virtues of this board in his recent speech responding to Mr. Ryans budget proposal. This is a board of 15 unelected bureaucrats that is charged with limiting Medicare spending to predetermined limits. The only mechanism available to them is to further decrease reimbursements or to eliminate reimbursements for particular procedures or patients altogether. Furthermore, the decision of this unelected panel is law; the secretary of health and human services will implement the board’s recommendations. This undoubtedly will lead to rationing of care, particularly for those most vulnerable (the elderly and the very young), much as is seen in the United Kingdom today.

The Democrats are banking heavily on the notion that most people don’t want any changes to Medicare. What they don’t want you to know is that Obamacare has already changed Medicare drastically. Medicare has been financially eviscerated, guaranteeing that seniors will not receive the care that they have been promised. In addition, they will be subjected to the dictates of an unelected board of bureaucrats that will be mandated to determine what care will be allowed. As increasing numbers of people reach retirement age and the resultant financial stresses are added to a government already in financial crisis, the Independent Payment Advisory Board will be forced under Obamacare to further restrict services in order to control costs.

This is the problem of which Hayek warned us. Who will decide? Will it be the individual who decides what is best for him and what is in his best interest? Or will it be a board of anointed social planners who decide what we may and may not have in order to determine what is best for the collective?

Who will we be as a people? Will we continue to be a nation that supremely values individual liberty, as our Founding Fathers envisioned, putting personal decisions into the hands of the individual? Or will we sacrifice our right to make our own decisions to a panel of bureaucrats in Washington?

Who, whom?

Dr. Mark G. Neerhof is an executive board member of Docs for Patient Care.

A federal judge in Texas has ruled that a Christian pastor can pray in the name of Jesus at a Memorial Day ceremony. As a result of the judge’s decision, Pastor Scott Rainey did just that Monday at a Memorial Day Service at the National Cemetery in Houston.

Reverend Rainey, the pastor of Living Word Church of the Nazarene, has offered an invocation the last two years at the Memorial Day observance in Houston. But this year cemetery director Arleen Occasio asked to review his prayer prior to the ceremony.

Occasio then informed Pastor Rainey that he would not be allowed to participate in the ceremony unless he removed the name of Jesus from his prayer. Occasio said that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, which has jurisdiction over the cemetery, “cannot be exclusive at a ceremony meant to be inclusive for all the nation’s veterans.”

Pastor Rainey appealed the decision to the Office of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and when unsuccessful, enlisted the Liberty Institute to file a lawsuit in federal court citing his First Amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes ruled that the Veterans Affairs policy was an unconstitutional infringement of free speech. “The government cannot gag citizens when it says it is in the interest of national security, and it cannot do it in some bureaucrat’s notion of cultural homogeneity. The right to free expression ranges from the dignity of Abraham Lincoln’s speeches to the rants of Charlie Sheen.”

Liberty Institute attorney Jeff Mateer hailed the judge’s decision. “Our veterans fought for and many died for our religious freedom; to have it stripped away under the facade of inclusiveness is the height of offense to those who have served our country.”

A local veteran expressed dismay at the controversy, saying “I don’t know how far they want to go with all this. What is next? Removing the crosses from the graves and headstones?”

What does his eloquent prose really mean to us?

To the man who captured the hearts of over 53%ⁱ of Americans, a man of both precedence and outward candor, and a man who overwhelmingly won the most esteemed office in our land, Barrack Hussein Obama. Along with the opening of a new chapter in President Obama’s and our nation’s history, was the anticipated turning of the page in the lives of so many hopeful Americans who had hoped the mantra of “Change” would bring an economically strong and viable country, sustainable jobs, and an end to massive foreclosures and corporate corruption.

The majority of Americans had high hopes and expectations; in part, guaranteed by the man himself who said “I am a blank slate to be written upon”. Many of us probably assumed that WE would be the ones writing on his canvas what WE wanted America to be like – a strong and vibrant America. However, over the past three years we have seen something far different than we had been told, and something far more alarming than most in this generation had ever seen. Here is our leader, who swore to represent the people of this country. Here is our leader, who swore to uphold the rule of law and Constitution of this great land. Yet, time and time again, we clearly see a man driven by another agenda. An agenda of his own choosing, that has no regard for the clear majority in this country.

Over the past three years, many of the 63 million who voted for Obama have slowly but surely seen the components of his “Change” theory. Focusing on Mr. Obama’s speech on the Middle East and North Africa, given just days ago, let us analyze some of the components of “Change” as President Obama sees them.

THE PRESIDENT:

-For six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change taking place in the Middle East and North Africa…

-But the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression and strategies of diversion will not work anymore…And so a new generation has emerged. And their voices tell us that change cannot be denied.

ANALYSIS:

A new generation has never been born within 6 months. A basic rule of thumb in analyzing numbers is that “a month does not make a trend”. Not even six months should be an acceptable timeframe to measure the sustainability of the changes we have all witnessed in this region–a region that is riddled with corruption, soaked in deep-seated sectarian and religious hatred, and a land without the vital infrastructure of unity, legitimate and transparent distribution of finances, political structure, and a people skilled in voicing their demands without the fear of retaliation.

One hundred sixty-seven years. It took 167 years from the time the pilgrims set sail on the Mayflower in 1620 to the signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787. This is 17 years after a riot broke out in Boston over Britain’s excessive tax on tea, known as the Boston Tea Party. Like in Egypt, here was a revolt against an oppressive and corrupt government. Yet, the U.S. Constitution was not signed 6 months later. With many battles in between to steady our resolve, 17 years passed before WE officially declared our independence from Britain.

Let us not forget the Black American struggle. It was another 76 years after the Constitution was signed before the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect on January 1, 1863, freeing slaves. Yet still, another 101 years passed before the end of the legal sanctions of Jim Crow laws with the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.^{ii iii} There were many battles won and lost that tested the spirit of the American people – blacks and whites alike. But, through the struggles we found ourselves, we defined ourselves.

What am I trying to say here? Simply, that we did not declare our independence 6 months after leaving Britain. We did not declare our independence the day after the Boston Tea Party. By the time of the signing of the Constitution, WE had fought enough smaller battles that our resolve and steadfastness was assured. Before France and others came to our aid, WE were resolved and our pursuit for a better life had been time tested.

The proof is in the pudding. Before $2 billion plus are given to Egypt, we should demand to see the evidence of a change in nature. Before we assist in building up the infrastructure of those not typically considered our friend, but historically are our foes, we should expect to see a people proving to themselves that they want different for themselves. This evidence should not be based on emotional stories given to us by our President. So much is at stake that we should not base our decisions on random hearsay of people chanting “Muslim, Christians, we are one”^ivwhen we see and hear differently.

-March 5, 2011 – A mob of nearly 4000 Muslims attacked a Christian church near Cairo, Egypt.^v

-May 9, 2011 – Christians attacked in Egypt, 12 Christian Muslims killed, 232 injured.^vi

-May 17, 2011 – Christian Protesters attacked in Egypt, angry mob of over 100 rushed the Christians hurling rocks and fire bombs.^vii

-…and the list goes on.

THE PRESIDENT:

-In Cairo, we heard the voice of the young mother who said, “It’s like I can finally breathe fresh air for the first time.

-In Sanaa, we heard the students who chanted, “Our words are free now. It’s a feeling you can’t explain.

-In Damascus, we heard the young man who said, “After the first yelling, the first shout, you feel dignity.”

-After local officials refused to hear his complaints (a Tunisia street vendor who’s cart was confiscated), this young man…went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel, and lit himself on fire.

-We have the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator. There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity.

-We have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals.

-The United States supports a set of universal rights.

-…we support political and economic reform…that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.

-Today I want to make it clear that it is a TOP PRIORITY that must be…supported by ALL of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.

-What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion and not consent. (Question: would this include China next?)

ANALYSIS:

Based on emotion-driven stories, our leader has pledged America’s full support and resources to help the “self-determination of individuals”. America is not a global cowboy (and girl) or a global watchdog. It is not our job to swoop in and make sure every Sovereign country is treating everyone nicely – humanly even. Based on 6 months of revolt, many tear-jerking stories, and President Obama’s personal affinity towards the region, America’s overly strained resources have been pledged to help others feel better about themselves and their opportunities in life. Admirable, indeed; but, a vibrant America should be his TOP PRIORITY. Instead, little is being done to ease American’s woes:

-Nationally, on average, we are paying $4 a gallon for gas. Chicago gas prices are nearing $5 a gallon. This noose around our wallets could be lessened if it became a TOP PRIORITY for our representatives.

-Since 2008, inflation rates have steadily increased year-over-year and in every single month this year.^viii Over the past 6 months, the costs to purchase the following necessities have risen.^ix Note: these are real expenses felt every day.

-The American jobless rate as of April 2011 is 9% versus 4.6% in 2006.^xi

-National debt is $14,305,336,580,992.11, as of April 18, 2011. That’s over $14 trillion dollars. This equates to roughly $46 thousand dollars per American.

What am I trying to say? Simply, we cannot afford to save anyone until we first save ourselves. Notice the litmus test Mr. Obama uses to swoop in and pledge our boundless allegiance – UNIVERSAL RIGHTS of people and assisting the WORLD in securing their freedom (i.e., self-determination). Will this litmus test apply to China next, where sterilization is still a thing of the present for the citizens of China? This is an apparent shifting away from imposing ourselves upon another nation when our own interests are not in danger. This new paradigm begs the question “is there such a thing as national sovereignty anymore?” Are borders a thing of the past? Can anyone say with me “One World Government”? Is the inevitable future upon us, now?

The buzz word “universal rights” is something we should expect to hear more and more of, so listen out. But, for now, let the Middle East build their own change, by their own sweat equity. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the sum of the Arab nation’s account balance is roughly $63 billion, while America’s net account balance is a negative -$561 billion.^{xii xiii} That buys a lot of assistance and power within their own community, to help their own people. And, if they are not willing to help themselves then why should we rush to pledge our best to them. It is doubtful that the average American wants to spend needed resources being “global bullies” and forcing sovereign countries to bend to our beliefs.

Throughout the first half of Mr. Obama’s speech, it became evident that he does not only want to help those who are helping themselves by taking to the streets in revolt. But, he is willing to be the Agent of Change in other Arab countries as he sees fit. As history tells us, this would be most unwise and very expensive in both American lives and dollars.

Perhaps it is true, that global change today comes at a much faster pace than the one we read about in our history books. Perhaps, the train has left the station, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Perhaps, this course in history is inevitable. But, is this what America wants? Does the voting public have a say in the country we want and in the role we believe we should play in the world? Or, are those matters now decided for us by the elites?

ⁱhttp://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-05/politics/election.president_1_electoral-votes-african-american-voters-electoral-college-tally?_s=PM:POLITICS

ⁱⁱ Side note: The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 finally ended the legal sanctions to Jim Crow.

ⁱⁱⁱ http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0826301.html

^iv http://obamafoodorama.blogspot.com/2011/05/transcript-president-obamas-remarks-on.html

^v http://www.persecution.org/2011/03/06/nearly-4000-muslims-attack-christian-homes-in-egypt-torch-church/

^vi http://islamizationwatch.blogspot.com/2011/05/islamic-rules-christians-attacked-in.html

^vii http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2721203/posts

^viiihttp://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/currentinflation.asp

^ix http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1104.pdf

^x CPI – Seasonally adjusted annual rate percent change for 6 months ending April 2011

^xi http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea03.pdf

^xii Account Balance is a country’s net trade in goods and services, plus net earnings from rents, interest, profits, and dividends, and net transfer payments (such as pension funds and worker remittances) to and from the rest of the world during the period specified. These figures are calculated on an exchange rate basis, i.e., not in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms.

^xiii https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html

Kathy Barnette is a conservative black young mother. She spent over 14 years in financial advising and over 10 years in the Armed Forces Reserves. She is currently an adjunct Professor of Finance and Organizational Behavior, a Christian conference speaker, and writes forExaminer.com. Her blog can be found at TrueChristianLiving.com.

Official providers of chaplains to U.S. military voice strong concerns over long-neglected conscience protections if DADT is torn down.

WASHINGTON – Twenty-one religious agencies providing chaplains to the U.S. military sent a joint letter to the military’s chiefs of chaplains Monday voicing strong concern over the continuing absence of religious liberty protections if openly practiced homosexual behavior is definitively imposed on the military. The letter asks the chiefs for their help in urging Congress and the Department of Defense to adopt such protections.

ADF attorneys helped draft and propose religious liberty protections for the Pentagon’s working group on the matter, but the law designed to dismantle the so-called “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy still lacks any such protections. ADF has provided free legal support to many concerned chaplains and service members.

“Service members should not be denied the very constitutional liberties they volunteered to defend,” said ADF Legal Counsel Daniel Blomberg. “If this government truly cares about protecting religious liberties as it says it does, why has it been afraid to put it in writing? The alarm has been sounded time and time again in this process by those with the utmost credibility. The question is: will our military leaders and elected officials listen?”

“The protections that ADF and others have proposed simply preserve the constitutional status quo and allow service members to speak openly about their religious and moral beliefs,” Blomberg added. “The chiefs do not have an easy job, and the signers of this letter clearly want to support their service to God and country. Part of that support is encouraging the chiefs to help defend important religious liberties.”

The letter is signed by endorsing agents representing many of the major Christian denominations that provide chaplains, including the military’s largest chaplain endorser, the Southern Baptist Convention’s North American Mission Board. The Roman Catholic Archbishop for the Military Services USA issued his own statement Friday.

The letter expresses additional concern that the endorsing agents, who are highly respected veteran military officers and chaplains themselves, have rarely been sought for input. The letter specifically cites a recent Navy chaplaincy directive that would allow same-sex “marriage” ceremonies at Navy chapels in some states even though doing so would be illegal under the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

“Though this revision is now temporarily suspended pending further review, we are genuinely concerned that this might be a sign of things to come,” the letter states. “We are likewise concerned that endorsers and faith communities had no voice in the formulation of such a significant policy change. DOMA remains the law of the land. There is no clear reason why it does not apply to Federal military facilities, particularly base chapels…. Since the current administration has publicly stated that it will no longer support and defend DOMA, this action has every appearance of selective disregard for the law and raises significant concerns.”

“It is not sufficient to posit, as the CRWG report did, that chaplains and service members remain free to exercise their faith in chapel services,” the letter continues. “Service members should know that chaplains’ ministry and their own rights of conscience remain protected everywhere military necessity has placed them. We hope that you will join us in urging the DoD and Congress to adopt such specific and intentional conscience protections.”

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

To date, thirty-seven United States Senators have signed onto Senate Resolution 99, the Senate resolution opposing ratification of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). This globalist treaty would violate U.S. sovereignty and diminish God-given parental rights. Thirty-seven U.S. Senators is good news since that number can effectively halt any efforts by the Obama Administration to ratify the treaty which requires a 2/3 senate majority. The goal is to have 40 senators in opposition and unfortunately, U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk have thus far failed to sign the resolution.

TAKE ACTION: Click HERE to contact Senators Durbin and Kirk today to ask them to sponsor and support SR 99.

Tell them that SR 99 is critical to protecting our rights to self-determination and self-government. Tell them that the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) would be binding on American families, courts and policy-makers, and would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families. The treaty’s “best interest of the child principle” would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.

For more information on SR 99, click HERE.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month

Yesterday, the U.S. House took up H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act, which seeks to end the health care loopholes, not covered by the Hyde Amendment, that allow for taxpayer money to be used for abortion services under the new ‘Obamacare’ law.

This bill passed by a vote of 251 to 175. Below is a roll call, listing how Illinois’ House Congressional members voted on H.R. 3.

Of Illinois’ 19 U.S. Representatives, 13 voted to stop taxpayer funding of abortion while 6 voted to continue. Democrats Daniel Lipinski and Jerry Costello joined Illinois Republicans who all voted for this bill. We’ve also indicated in the list below, the Congressmen who co-sponsored this bill.

IFI thanks the 13 Illinois members of the House who voted in favor of H.R. 3.

Take ACTION: This legislation will now head to the U.S. Senate. Send a loud and clear message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin andMark Kirk to urge them to stop forcing the taxpayers to subsidize abortion services!

Voting Results for The No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act:

Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D)–No
1st Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-4372
District Phone:             773-224-6500
Webform

Rep. Jesse L. Jackson (D)–No
2nd Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-0773
District Phone:             708-798-6000

Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D)–YEA
H.R. 3 Co-Sponsor
3rd Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-5701
District Phone:             312-886-0481
Webform

Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D)–No
4th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-8203
District Phone:             773-342-0774
Webform

Rep. Mike Quigley (D)–No
5th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-4061
District Phone:             773-267-5926
Webform

Rep. Peter Roskam (R)–YEA
H.R. 3 Co-Sponsor
6th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-4561
District Phone:             630-893-9670
Webform

Rep. Danny K. Davis (D)–No
7th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-5006
District Phone:             773-533-7520
Webform

Rep. Joe Walsh (R)–YEA
8th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-3711
District Phone:             847-973-9341
Webform

Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky (D)–No
9th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-2111
District Phone:             773-506-7100
Webform

Rep. Bob Dold (R)–YEA
10th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-4835
District Phone:             847-940-0202
Webform

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R)–YEA
H.R. 3 Co-Sponsor
11th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-3635
District Phone:             815-729-2308
Webform

Rep. Jerry F. Costello (D)–YEA
H.R. 3 Co-Sponsor
12th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-5661
District Phone:             618-233-8026
Webform

Rep. Judy Biggert (R)–YEA
13th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-3515
District Phone:             630-655-2052
info@biggert.com

Rep. Randy Hultgren (R)–YEA
H.R. 3 Co-Sponsor
14th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-2976
District Phone:             815-288-1174
Webform

Rep. Timothy V. Johnson (R)–YEA
H.R. 3 Co-Sponsor
15th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-2371
District Phone:             217-403-4690
Webform

Rep. Donald A. Manzullo (R)–YEA
H.R. 3 Co-Sponsor
16th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-5676
District Phone:             815-394-1231
Webform

Rep. Robert Schilling (R)–YEA
H.R. 3 Co-Sponsor
17th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-5905
District Phone:             309-343-1194
Webform

Rep. Aaron Shock (R)–YEA
H.R. 3 Co-Sponsor
18th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-6201
District Phone:             309-671-7027
info@aaronschock.com

Rep. John Shimkus (R)–YEA
H.R. 3 Co-Sponsor
19th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-5271
District Phone:             217-492-5090
Webform

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.

The U.S. House of Representatives will begin voting this week on HR 3, “The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.”

HR 3 will prevent the use of federal taxpayer funds to pay for elective abortion. If HR 3 does not become law, we as taxpayers may soon be paying for 675,000 abortions a year.

A 2011 CNN opinion research poll says that 61 percent of Americans oppose the use of taxpayer funding for abortions even when a woman can’t afford it. A 2010 Zogby poll found that 77 percent of Americans do not believe that federal funds should ever pay for abortions or should pay only to save the life of the mother.

HR 3 is needed to override the abortion funding provisions in ObamaCare. President Obama’s executive order prohibiting taxpayer funded abortions in ObamaCare is meaningless, because an executive order does not trump the actual text of legislation enacted by Congress.

Take ACTION: Please send a messge to your U.S. Representative and your two U.S. Senators to support HR 3. The message will also go to President Obama and Vice President Biden.

You can also call the congressional switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Co-sponsors of this legislation are: Jerry Costello (D-Belleville), Randy Hultgren (R-Dixon), Timothy Johnson (R-Champaign), Adam Kinzinger(R-Joliet), Daniel Lipinski (D-Chicago), Donald Manzullo (R-Rockford), Robert Schilling (R-Galesburg), Aaron Shock (R-Peoria) and John Shimkus (R-Centralia).

Thank you for taking action.

From AlbertMoehler.com

The defense of the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] got a little more complicated yesterday as the law firm that the House of Representatives had hired to defend the law withdrew from the case. As The New York Times stated bluntly, the firm dropped the case “amid pressure from gay rights groups.”

The Atlanta-based firm, King & Spalding, had agreed to take the case, and one of its lawyers, Paul D. Clement, was to lead the legal effort to defend the constitutionality of DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman in terms of federal recognition. The law also prevents any state from being forced to grant legal recognition to a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

Robert D. Hays, Jr., chairman of King & Spalding, released a statement in which he said: “In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate. … Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created.”

Clement, a former solicitor general of the United States under President George W. Bush, immediately resigned from King & Spalding and will continue to represent the House of Representatives in the case.

As The New York Times reported, Clement said: “I resign out of the firmly held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client’s legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. … Defending unpopular clients is what lawyers do. I recognized from the outset that this statute implicates very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides. But having undertaken the representation, I believe there is no honorable course for me but to complete it.”

Gay rights groups hailed the law firm’s decision. Activist groups such as the Human Rights Campaign had lobbied King & Spalding to drop the case. The Weekly Standard obtained copies of emails sent by the Human Rights Campaign to supporters that read, in part: “Later that day we announced the elements of our campaign to show King & Spalding’s hypocrisy for taking on Defense of DOMA while touting their pro-gay policies – including their 95% score on HRC’s Corporate Equality Index. … In the meantime we also contacted many of the firm’s clients, LGBT student groups at top law schools and used social media to inform the public about K&S’s wrongheaded decision.”

The success of the group’s efforts to intimidate King & Spalding serves as a warning of things to come. This is the kind of intimidation that will be used against any organization or institution – or law firm – that takes a controversial case and opposes the agenda of the gay rights movement. Watch and be warned.

We should also take special note of the statement by Paul Clement. He defended his commitment to defend DOMA and the U.S. House of Representatives by stating, “Defending unpopular clients is what lawyers do.”

So, now DOMA and the House of Representatives fall under the category of “unpopular clients” despite the fact that DOMA was passed by the overwhelming vote of both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. That statement underlines the moral revolution happening in our midst and indicates what groups like the Human Rights Campaign are certain is the direction of history. Armed with that confidence, intimidation is now the order of their day.

During the recent showdown in Washington about the federal government’s budget, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), successfully negotiated a vote on the “Pence Amendment” in the U.S. Senate. The U.S. House passed the Pence Amendment by a vote of 241 to 185, which removes government funding from Planned Parenthood — the nation’s largest provider of abortions.

According to our friends at the Family Research Council (FRC), despite being a billion-dollar-a-year corporation, Planned Parenthood annually receives $363,200,000 — 33 percent of its income — from “government grants and contracts,” that is, from taxpayer dollars.

With this money, Planned Parenthood claims it performs “benevolent services.” However, 97.6 percent of the “services” they provided for pregnant women in 2009 ended in abortion and only 2.4 percent involved prenatal care or adoption referral. Income from abortions constitutes 37 percent of their total profit.

The U.S. Senate rejected the measure 53-47 on a straight party-line vote late Thursday evening. However, the effort to de-fund Planned Parenthood of tax dollars will be revisited in the future, so it is important that Illinois’ U.S. Congressional delegation know where you stand on this issue.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or fax to our U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative. You may want to remind them that there are plenty of legitimate health clinics out there that will provide services to women other than abortion. And 99 percent of them probably haven’t been implicated in child prostitution, sex abuse, or statutory rape.

You can also place calls to U.S. Senator Dick Durbin at  (202) 224-2152, and to U.S. Senator Mark Kirk at  (202) 224-2854      .

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.

Some may remember the scene from the film Moonstruck in which Cher slaps Nicholas Cage upside the head and yells “Snap out of it.” Somebody better slap the conservative community upside its collective head before the federal government spends all its time cooing at homosexuality.

Recently, the lovestruck Department of Justice, White House, and Congress have wasted valuable time and public resources servicing homosexual activists via a White House conference, a Department of Justice video, and three proposed bills.

Last week, President Barack Obama held an “anti-bullying” (nudge nudge, wink wink) conference at the White House to which he invited the infamous homosexual “safe schools” czar Kevin Jennings; openly homosexual Fort Worth city councilman Joel Burns; the 16-year-old executive direct of Gays and Lesbians United Against Discrimination; at least two representatives from the Gay, Lesbian and Straight “Education” Network; someone from the Human Rights Campaign; someone from the National Center for Transgender Equality; and someone from the Trevor Project.

The White House also invited the foul-mouthed, anti-Christian homosexual activist Dan Savage, creator of the “It Gets Better” project. Savage said the conference was “of tremendous symbolic importance,” but also complained that “What was never addressed is when the parents are the bullies.” Someone should ascertain exactly what Savage views as parental “bullying.”

The government has created a website dedicated to ending bullying, a noble mission concealing an ignoble ultimate goal and troubling underlying philosophy. The underlying philosophy includes three central assumptions: 1. Homosexuality is equivalent to race, 2. Homosexuality is morally positive, and 3. The expression of conservative moral beliefs constitutes illegitimately discriminatory speech, which contributes to bullying.

The ultimate goal is the eradication of conservative moral beliefs and the creation of a social and legal climate that make it impossible for them to be expressed. For those who have eyes to see, the website offers clues to this goal and philosophy.

There are three image links at the bottom of the homepage: one is a link to information on cyberbullying; one is a link to information on the White House Conference; and one is a link to information on “LGBT Bullying.” Remarkable. Of all the conditions for which students may be bullied, there’s a special image link and section dedicated to only two: homosexuality and “transgenderism” (more accurately, Gender Identity Disorder). Not one other disorder gets special attention — not attention deficit disorder, not attention deficit hyper activity disorder, not Asperger’s Syndrome.

And homosexuality and “transgenderism” are the only conditions constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts that many consider immoral that get special attention. Promiscuous students and drug-users, for example, are often bullied. Why don’t those conditions get image links to their own special sections?

This Obama administration effort follows close on the heels of a pinheaded and inappropriate decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to create a video for Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better” project. Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Thomas Perez showed the DOJ video to public high school students in Silver Spring, Maryland. Here are a few of the comments made by DOJ employees, most of whom identify as homosexual, in their roles as government employees:

• “Being different is cool.”
• “Don’t be ashamed of who you are. Keep being yourself.”
• “If I knew when I was eight that the thing that was causing me so much pain… would actually define me in a way that makes me very, very proud, I would get through it.”

These should be shocking comments to hear in a publicly funded project of the federal government. The federal government has made the astonishing public claims that homosexuality is “cool”; that no one should be ashamed of homosexuality; and that homosexuality should be a source of pride. The individuals who appear in this video are, of course, entitled to their own non-factual ontological and moral beliefs. In their roles as government employees, however, they have no right to promote those unproven, subjective, non-factual beliefs.

This video should be a public scandal. Imagine if philosophically conservative government employees appeared in a publicly funded video in their professional roles, saying that it is not cool to engage in homosexual acts; that homosexual acts are shameful; and that homosexuality is not something of which to be proud.

It is objectively true that no one should be bullied. It is not objectively true that homosexuality is cool; that people should keep living a homosexual life; or that homosexuality is worthy of pride or respect. No employee of the government acting in their official position has any right to promote those arguable moral beliefs.

At the conclusion of the high school propaganda session, likely held during Mr. Perez’s working hours, students were invited to sign the “It Gets Better” pledge, the first sentence of which states, “Everyone deserves to be respected for who they are.” A feckless statement, but oh so persuasive with non-thinking people. The statement suggests without stating that those who identify as homosexual should be respected for their homosexuality. That is a moral proposition which is widely rejected and which no representative of the government has any right to promote in their professional role.

Everyone deserves to be respected because they’re human beings created in the likeness of God. It should be obvious, however, that not every subjective feeling or behavioral choice is worthy of respect. Humans deserve to be respected for their humanness in spite of their disordered inclinations and immoral volitional acts.

But it’s not just the executive branch that’s dancing to GLSEN’s gay tunes. Our homosexuality-affirming legislators have been busy little bees of late, including our very own junior U.S. Senator, Mark Kirk. The technically Republican Kirk, who has a special fondness for all pro-homosexual legislation, has joined 18 Democratic senators and one independent to introduce the Senate version of the Safe Schools Improvement Act — S. 506, which will deny elementary, middle, and high schools federal funds to combat drugs and violence unless they also agree to explicitly address homosexuality and transgenderism.

Openly homosexual U.S. Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) and comedian U.S. Senator Al Franken (D-MN) have re-introduced their recently moribund Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA) bill — H.R. 998. According to the Human Rights Campaign, this act “would prevent schools from discriminating against students because of the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of a person with whom that student associates or has associated.” If passed, SNDA will be used to censor any resources that express the view that volitional homosexual acts are not moral acts.

The Human Rights Campaign makes the amusing claim that SNDA has “broad support.” Here are the organizations that they offer as evidence of breadth of support:

SNDA is has broad support from over 33 national organizations, including: The American Association of University Women, American Federation of Teachers, American Civil Liberties Union, American Psychological Association, American School Counselor Association, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Family Equality Council, Gay-Straight Alliance Network, GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders), GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement Officials, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of La Raza, National Education Association, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, National Women’s Law Center, PFLAG (Parents, Families, & Friends of Lesbians and Gays), People for the American Way, SAVE (Suicide Awareness Voices of Education), School Social Work Association of America, The Trevor Project and Transgender Law Center.

But that’s not all, two New Jersey lawmakers have recently reintroduced the troubling “Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act,” which will require colleges and universities that receive federal funds to add “sexual orientation” to their anti-discrimination policies, and asks for a “$250 million grant program to help schools form or expand campus anti-bullying programs.” The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is repeating its warning about the dangers this bill poses to First Amendment rights.

And if our busy legislative bees fail in these efforts to pollinate our schools with their unproven, unstated ontological and moral propositions on homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder, it is reported that they will simply hide their dubious pieces of legislation in the Elementary and Secondary School Act, which is “the key federal statute governing primary and secondary education.”

When will our ideologically askew and overreaching administration compel Americans to abandon their cowardly, unilateral “truce” on the “social issues”? C’mon, conservatives, snap out of it!

Take ACTION: Contact your federal elected representatives and tell them not to support any legislation or taxpayer subsidized efforts that espouse either implicitly or explicitly the following ideas: that homosexuality is normative, good, a source of pride, ontologically analogous to race, or morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Such ideas are non-factual, unproven, controversial assumptions. No arm of the government has any business using public money to advance them.

Support IFI’s Division of School Advocacy!

Would you prayerfully consider pledging a monthly gift of $25 or more to support this important division of IFI? A promise of this kind will help us form a strategic plan that budgetary constraints often makes impossible. Would you consider giving a tax-deductible gift to support our work? 

Click HERE to donate today! IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois.

Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.

In February, the U.S. House passed an amendment to a budget appropriations bill that would strip Planned Parenthood — the nation’s largest abortion provider — of all federal (taxpayer) funds. The vote was passed by a vote of 240-185. The amendment came in the wake of yet another scandal in which a Planned Parenthood clinic director was taped offering to provide abortions to underage prostitutes.

On Wednesday March 9th, the U.S. Senate voted down this bill by a vote of 44 to 56. Illinois Senator Dick Durbin voted against the bill while Senator Mark Kirk voted in favor of defunding. The National Right to Life committee is working with lawmakers to leave the amendment intact in future appropriations bills that come before the Senate.

While Planned Parenthood’s president is hobnobbing at the White House, her organization is breaking abortion records. As proud as Cecile Richards is of her operation, I doubt she bragged to anyone at the International Women’s Day party that her clinics just reached a grisly milestone:five million abortions in 40 years! Pro-life advocate Jill Stanek reports that the American Life League, which collected all of the reports, puts the exact figure is somewhere around 5,320,095. Of course, since there’s no uniform reporting requirement, Planned Parenthood is probably low-balling the numbers.

U.S. tax dollars continue to pour into Planned Parenthood facilities that don’t save lives but end them.

The newest effort by Planned Parenthood to preserve their tax-payer support is the college campaign “I Have Sex” (**WARNING! Linked video and posted comments is offensive), which is sure to delight the heart of every hard working parent who sends little Johnnie & Janie off to university for an “education.”

The effort to defund Planned Parenthood is being pushed at both the state and the Federal level and is far from over.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute. 
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has announced that the U.S. House will take steps to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) law in court after the Obama Administration recently announced it would no longer do so.

Speaker Boehner issued the following statement regarding the status of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):

I will convene a meeting of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group for the purpose of initiating action by the House to defend this law of the United States, which was enacted by a bipartisan vote in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. It is regrettable that the Obama Administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy. The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts — not by the president unilaterally — and this action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner consistent with our Constitution.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) echoed the Speaker’s position. “This regrettable decision was based on a standard no court has yet found to apply and is a clear political exercise by the Administration,” said Cantor.

According to the Heritage Foundation, federal statute allows the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate to defend the law if the Justice Department fails to do so. The U.S. Senate can vote to have its legal counsel appear on behalf of the chamber in place of the Justice Department. The U.S. House can do that, or hire private counsel.

Speaker Boehner says he’s explored the possibility of hiring a special counsel and his staff is researching several legal options. He has also convened a meeting of the five-member House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group.

Click HERE to read more.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.