Because the Republican platforms over the years have been much closer to my values than the Democratic platforms, I have voted Republican for as long as I can remember. But when it comes to bringing about moral and cultural change in America, I do not look to a political party. Not a chance. There is moral compromise in both major parties, and the battle we are fighting for the soul of the nation is a spiritual battle long before it is a political battle. The recent U.S. House vote to codify same-sex “marriage” was yet another reminder for us.

As reported by Fox News on July 19, “A vote to codify same-sex marriage into federal law split U.S. House Republicans on Tuesday, with roughly a third of the GOP conference voting with Democrats in favor and the rest opposing.

“In a 267-157 vote, the House passed legislation repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and enshrining protections for gay marriage into federal law. Overall, 47 House Republicans voted with nearly every single Democrat to back the measure, dubbed the Respect for Marriage Act.”

Let that sink in for a moment.

It is bad enough that this bill is called the “Respect for Marriage Act,” seeing that the “marriage” of which it speaks represents a radical and fundamental redefining of the institution of marriage.

And it is to the shame of the Democratic Party that “nearly every single Democrat” voted in favor of the measure.

But it is no surprise that the Democrats voted this way, seeing that they are overtly and proudly pro-LGBTQ+. Perhaps the only surprise is that there were any who did not toe the line.

But for 47 Republicans to vote this way, representing almost 25 percent of all Republicans in the House, is both surprising and shameful.

That’s because the Republican Party is supposed to be the pro-life, pro-family party, the party that upholds traditional Judeo-Christian values. Why else do so many conservative Christians vote Republican if not for these core moral and social values?

The fact is that the redefining of marriage by the Supreme Court in 2015 represents one of the most radical social developments in our nation’s history, fundamentally changing the meaning and purpose of marriage.

In fact, the same Barack Obama who lit up the White House in rainbow colors to celebrate the 2015 ruling is the same person who said while campaigning in 2008 that, as a Christian, he believed marriage was the union of one man and one woman.

Not only so, but Proposition 8, which was on the ballot in 2008 in California and which upheld the historic definition of marriage, was passed with the help of the large turnout of African American voters. They voted for Barack Obama, but in keeping with their largely conservative family values, they voted for Proposition 8. In their mind, the man they were voting for shared their views.

That’s how dramatically and quickly the tide changed in our nation, from candidate Obama affirming male-female marriage to President Obama shifting his views already in his first term.

That’s part of the reason we find ourselves in the midst of such cultural madness today, where the very meaning of “woman” is hotly debated, where medical websites use acronyms such as AFAB and AMAB (meaning, assigned female at birth and assigned male at birth) rather than “female” and “male,” and where even the Merriam-Webster dictionary has expanded its definition of “female.”

The normalizing of same-sex “marriage” simply represented the proverbial camel’s nose entering the tent, to be followed by: 1) the amping up of radical trans activism in the schools, in the workplace, on TV and social media, and in sports; 2) the rise of drag queens, to the point that the American Library Association endorses drag queens reading stories to little children in libraries; 3) the increasing marginalization of those holding to conservative Christian values on both grass roots and legal levels.

In fact, if I provided links just to my relevant articles on these subjects over the last 7 years (since Obergefell), this entire page (literally) would be filled with “see here and here and here . . . .” The list is almost endless. (For the moment, if you want devastating proof of #3 in the list, above, go here.)

Really now, redefining marriage was not even on the radar for leading gay activists just a few decades ago, since under no circumstances was a cultural shift of this enormity even envisioned. Yet here we stand today, when 47 Republicans voted to codify this radical redefinition of our most fundamental social institution.

Again, as I have said many times, by saying this, I do not mean that gay couples do not love each other deeply. And I do not deny that many of them are incredibly devoted parents. I simply mean that marriage throughout history, with the rarest and slightest exceptions (like Nero marrying a man who took on female characteristics), has always been the union of a male and female. And from a biblical perspective, the idea of two men or two women marrying would be utterly abhorrent.

For 47 House Republicans to vote to protect this new version of “marriage” is deplorable (in the worst sense of the word), regardless of what Republican Senators decide to do.

And it is another reminder that, while I continue to prefer Republican policies to Democrat policies, by and large, I absolutely do not look to either party to be major agents of righteous moral and cultural change. That remains the calling of the Church and the role of the gospel.

As I argue in my forthcoming book, The Political Seduction of the Church, to confuse the role of politics with the role of the gospel is a fatal mistake. We cannot afford to make it again.

Read more:

Two Lame Duck Republicans from Illinois Vote Against Marriage (Illinois Family Action)

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Since the unconstitutional Roe was overturned, leftists have been roiling in rage at the thought that states are now free to enact the will of the people with regard to killing humans in the womb. In his concurrence, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued that three other Supreme Court cases should be revisited in that they too lacked constitutional grounding—an argument made also by the esteemed Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork.

One of the decisions Thomas believes should be revisited is the Obergefell decision that imposed same-sex “marriage” on the entire country, robbing states—that is, the people—of their right to decide if intrinsically non-marital relationships should be legally recognized as marriages. And so, leftists livid at the prospect of diverse states one day being free to enact marriage laws in accordance with the will of the people, are trying to take that right away preemptively through federal legislation.

This week the U.S. House of Representatives passed the laughably named “Respect for Marriage Act” (H.R. 8404)—a bill that doesn’t merely disrespect marriage; it is hostile to marriage. The bill, which would overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, now goes to the U.S. Senate.

Forty-seven Republicans voted for it, including Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, Rodney Davis, Tom Emmer (chair of National Republican Congressional Committee), Darrell Issa, Elise Stefanik (U.S. House Republican Conference chair), and Lee Zeldin. Any Republican who doesn’t understand the essential role of the nuclear family—that is, mother, father, and children—to the health and future of any society doesn’t deserve to serve in government.

The Defense of Marriage Act—which all U.S. House Democrats and 47 “Republicans” detest—defines marriage in federal law “as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex.” In contrast, the Disrespect for Marriage Act recognizes in federal law “any marriage that is valid under state law.”

Note that this means that once Utah, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, or any other nutty state recognizes plural unions as marriages, the federal government will be forced to recognize plural unions as marriages.

While there is a provision requiring states to recognize marriages from other states, that provision specifically limits the type of marriages that must be recognized to those composed of two people. No such limit is placed on the federal government in the Disrespect for Marriage Act.

While some naïfs among us may view this as an oversight, others see it as intentional—an interim step to the legal recognition of plural unions from sea to darkening sea.

Marriage is something. It has a nature. And words have meanings.

As I wrote four years ago, let’s try a little thought experiment. Let’s imagine that now, after legally recognizing intrinsically non-marital same-sex unions as “marriages,” society notices that there remains a unique type of relationship that is identified by the following features: it is composed of two people of major age who are not closely related by blood, are of opposite sexes, and engage in the only kind of sexual act that is naturally procreative. We decide that as language-users there must be a term to identify this particular, commonplace, and cross-cultural type of relationship. Let’s call it “huwelijk.”

In this thought experiment in which the term “marriage” would denote the union of two people of the same sex and “huwelijk” would denote the union of two people of opposite sexes—both of which provide the same legal protections, benefits, and obligations—does anyone believe that homosexuals would accept such a distinction?

Homosexuals would not accept such a linguistic distinction. They would not accept it even if they enjoyed all the practical benefits society historically accorded to sexually complementary couples and even if their unions were legally recognized as marriages.

Homosexuals would not tolerate such a legal distinction because their tyrannical quest for universal approval of homoerotic relationships cannot be achieved unless they obliterate all distinctions—including linguistic distinctions—between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions. Homosexuals—whose unions are naturally sterile—would not tolerate any term that signifies the naturally procreative union between one man and one woman.

Severing marriage from both biological sex and reproductive potential renders marriage irrelevant as a public institution. The most salient aspects of marriage as an institution sanctioned by the government are not subjective feelings of affection and sexual attraction. The government has no vested interest in the private subjective feelings of marriage partners.

The government has a vested interest in the public good. What serves the public good is the welfare of future generations. And what best serves future generations is providing for the needs and protecting the rights of children, which includes their right to be raised by a mother and father, preferably their own biological parents.

If marriage were solely a private institution concerned only with emotional attachments and sexual desire, as homosexuals claim it is, then there would be no reason for the government to be involved. There would be no more justification for government regulation of marriage than there is for government regulation of platonic friendships. And there would be no legitimate reason to prohibit plural marriages.

If the claim of homosexuals that marriage has no intrinsic, necessary, and rational connection to the biological sex of partners or to reproductive potential are true, then there remains no rational basis for the belief that marriage has anything to do with romantic or erotic feelings.

Why is marriage any longer conceived of as a romantic and erotic union? If marriage is severed from biological sex and from reproductive potential and if love is love, then why can’t a loving platonic relationship between three BFF’s be recognized as a marriage? Why can’t the platonic relationship between a 40-year-old soccer coach and his 13-year-old soccer star be deemed a marriage? If “progressives” can jettison the single most enduring and cross-cultural feature of marriage—sexual differentiation—then on what basis can they conceptually retain any other feature, including the notion that marriage is a romantic/erotic union? While eroticism may be important to intimate partners, of what relevance is naturally sterile erotic activity to the government’s interest in marriage as now construed?

When Leftists assert that “love is love,” they really mean that the moral status of erotic activity between two men or two women is no different from the moral status of sexual activity between a man and a woman. If the claim that “love is love,” is true, then there is no rational basis for thinking that there exist types of relationships in which eroticism has no legitimate place. If that’s the case, then why isn’t it morally permissible for all types of relationships to include erotic activity? If all loving relationships are identical (i.e., “love is love”), then why can’t all loving relationships include erotic activity? And if love is love, and marriage has no intrinsic nature, then it’s anything. And if it’s anything, it’s nothing.

If, however, there are different forms of love, some of which ought not include erotic activity, how do leftists determine when love ought not be eroticized?

Marriage is in tatters, but leftists want those tatters torched. Next up from “progressive” pyros: “eliminating the binary”—of marriage. Polyamorists are on the move. “Progressives” just love the smell of napalm all day long.

Take ACTION: H.R. 8404 may be taken up in the U.S. Senate soon**. Please take a moment to speak out to our two U.S. Senators to ask them to vote to protect the Defense of Marriage Act and vote NO to H.R. 8404. Remind them, “The government has no interest in inherently non-reproductive types of relationships. The government has no more interest in inherently non-reproductive erotic relationships than it does in platonic friendships.”

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin
https://www.durbin.senate.gov/contact/email
Phone: (202) 224-2152

U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth
https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/connect/email-tammy
Phone: (202) 224-2854

Please send a message and then follow up with a phone call early next week.

**UPDATE: According to various news sources, the U.S. Senate vote on H.R. 8404 has been pushed back to September.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Unprincipled-Republicans-Vote-for-the-Disrespect-for-Marriage-Act.mp3

In a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on abortion rights on Tuesday, July 12, 2022, UC Berkeley professor and far leftist (but I repeat myself) Khiara Bridges demonstrated that even smart people can be wildly ignorant. She is also an arrogant ideologue who fancies herself clever.

Bridges pounced on a question by Senator Josh Hawley in order to lecture him on her assumptions about sexuality, which she apparently believes are facts. She had used the Orwellian Newspeak term “people with a capacity for pregnancy” to refer to women of childbearing age. In response, Sen. Hawley asked, “Would that be women?” That’s a question my seven-year-old grandson could answer correctly but not Bridges. She haughtily replied,

Many women, ciswomen, have the capacity for pregnancy. Many ciswomen do not have the capacity for pregnancy. There are also transmen who are capable of pregnancy, as well as non-binary people who are capable of pregnancy.

Bridges used multiple Newspeakian terms, which need to be translated into plain English. Since leftists have invented an entire lexicon to advance their alchemical superstition, let’s call the language used by transcultists in Transtopia “Transspeak.”

Bridges’ used the Transspeakian term “ciswomen,” to refer to normal women who accept the objective reality that they are women. While not all “ciswomen” have the capacity for pregnancy in that they may be post-menopausal or have a genetic, biochemical, or anatomical disorder that prevents pregnancy, all persons with the capacity for pregnancy are women.

“Transmen” is the next term Bridges used. In Transspeak, a woman who wishes she were a man and pretends to be one is called a “transman.” Her delusional feeling about her sex is called her “gender identity.” And in Transspeak, “non-binary people” (“enbies” or “enbys”) is a term used to refer to people who pretend they are either both sexes or neither. Their delusional feeling about their absence of a sex or excess of sexes is their “gender identity.”

No one, however, should allow the coercive, bullying tactics of transgressives convince them that they have an ethical or moral obligation to use Transspeak, in which lies intended to deceive are embedded. Anyone who has a commitment to truth, has an obligation not to lie.

Now, back to Bridges.

Since in reality “transmen” are women with immutable female DNA and natal female biochemistry and anatomy, these women can, indeed, get pregnant, proving again that women (and only women) can get pregnant. So too can “non-binary” people who are objectively women get pregnant, proving again that women (and only women) can get pregnant.

Hawley then points out the intellectual incoherence of leftists’ referring to abortion as a women’s rights issue while claiming men can get pregnant:

So, this isn’t really a women’s rights issue.

Bridges, thinking she’s got a cunning “gotcha” response, retorts,

We can recognize that this impacts women while also recognizing that it impacts other groups. Those things are not mutually exclusive.

Did you notice what she did? That tricksy Bridges just changed the claim feminist harpies have asserted since 1973. They didn’t claim abortion “impacts” women. Feminists have claimed for decades that abortion is so completely and solely a women’s issue that men are not permitted to speak about it.

In addition, Bridges now claims that men can get pregnant. If that were true, then the issue would be every bit as much a men’s issue as a women’s issue and would impact them in identical ways.

Obviously, Bridges is wrong. Abortion can’t actually be solely a women’s rights issue—as leftist women have shrieked in the streets for years behind signs of uteruses and fallopian tubes—and also a man’s issue, just as I can’t be solely white and also Asian.

Following the “logic” of her argument, Hawley asked,

So, your view is that the core of this right then is about what?

Then the wheels began to fall off Bridges’ handmade, jerry-built “logic” train. She said:

I want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic, and it opens up trans people to violence.

Say what? Asking about which sex has babies and if abortion is a woman’s issue is “transphobic” and opens up sexually deluded people to violence? Does she have any evidence that Hawley’s two questions are shaped by an irrational fear or hatred of those who identify as the sex they are not?

If asking questions that challenge philosophical, ontological, or moral claims causes violence, wouldn’t then all moral claims open up some group to violence? Wouldn’t Bridges’ ugly allegations against Hawley open up to violence other conservatives who share his views?

Hawley expressed surprise at such a bizarre accusation, and with her logic train wheels shaking like leaves in a tornado, Bridges angrily accelerated, implying that Hawley’s questions will also contribute to the suicides of cross-dressers.

I want to note that one out of five transgender persons have attempted suicide.

Again, she provided no evidence.

Then with wheels flying off her train, Bridges accused Hawley of denying the existence of “transgender people.” Her proof? She asked, “Do you believe that men can get pregnant.” Hawley responded sanely with an answer backed up by science:

No, I don’t think that men can get pregnant.

With a snide laugh, she scornfully responded,

So, you’re denying that transpeople exist. Thank you.

Sen. Hawley is far from alone in believing that men cannot get pregnant. In fact, until about five minutes ago, everyone in the world and throughout history believed that, and most still do.

Moreover, denying that men can get pregnant is not a denial of the existence of “trans” people. I deny that men can get pregnant, and yet I believe in the existence of people who think they are or wish they were the sex they aren’t and never can be. To quote an infamous professor, “Those things are not mutually exclusive.”

When Hawley asked Bridges if she treats her students’ questions in the same way she had treated his questions, she condescendingly invited him to her class, telling him, “you might learn a lot.”

Bridges was disrespectful, presumptuous, illogical, and intolerant of diverse views. And when faced with the expression of moral or ontological claims that she hates, she hurled epithets and baseless accusations. Bridges epitomizes leftist educators.

And Hawley responded just as every person should respond to trans-tyranny.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/UC-Berkeley-Prof.-Proves-Smart-People-Can-Be-Ignorant.mp3

Biden’s border crisis is dangerous enough already, and it may soon get worse.

But his Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandra Mayorkas, paints a rosier picture, “We are preparing for the end of Title 42….We continue to enforce the laws of this country.”

Title 42 from the Trump era stipulates that until potential immigrants are tested and shown to not have the virus, they should remain in Mexico.

Title 42 was scheduled to expire 5/23/22. The Center for Immigration Studies notes, “Title 42 is the only thing standing between the current chaos at the Southwest border, and no border there at all.”

Biden has promised repeatedly to lift this provision, abandoning testing and opening the floodgates for illegal immigrants. But for now, his plan to abolish Title 42 has been blocked by a Trump-appointed judge.

Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) told Maria Bartiromo of Fox News Channel’s Sunday Morning Futures on 5/22/22 that the border crisis is acute. Marshall has visited the border and wants the president to do the same. The senator said:

“Maria, this is a human tragedy here…At nighttime, it looks like a war zone. There’s a sea of humanitarian crises here every evening. And every day, it’s lived out as well.”

The numbers of illegal immigrants swarming in is staggering. Writing in the Washington Examiner (5/19/22), Paul Bedard observed: “Last year’s 1.7 million border encounters is expected to reach 2.1 million, according to Princeton Policy Advisors, an economic analysis outfit that has correctly predicted recent border surges.”

The U.S. Constitution says it exists to “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” Do open borders for any nation help achieve such lofty goals?

On a recent radio segment, I spoke with former Congressman, Allen West, who has seen the border crisis first hand more than ten times. He told me, “Government is supposed to protect people within [our national] borders. That’s their Number 1 duty and responsibility. If we’re not going to follow the rule of law, then what are we supposed to base the Constitutional republic on?”

He added, “America is not just a piece of land in between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and Canada and Mexico. It is a sovereign nation, and it should be regarded and treated as such.” How can a nation remain sovereign if it has no borders?

Some open borders advocates imply that it’s the “Christian thing to do” to just let everyone in—yet surely these same people lock their doors at night.

Rev. Erwin Lutzer, the author of We Will Not Be Silenced, recently told our D. James Kennedy Ministries television audience: “One of the big mistakes that Christians sometimes make is that they want to apply the ethics of the church to the state. I heard a pastor saying–I’m sure that he was compassionate and meant well–when he said, ‘Of course, we should invite people into America and basically have open borders because after all the gospel is for everyone.’ Yes, of course, the gospel is for everyone, but that’s not the role of the state. The role of the state is to keep order, to punish crime, and to keep its citizens safe. That’s the role of the state.”

Lutzer added, “It is important that the church welcomes everyone. That’s the ministry of the church, but that is not the ministry of the state.”

Meanwhile, critics of Biden’s open border crisis note that known terrorists are sneaking into the country—more than 40 on the terrorist watch list slipped into the U.S. last year alone.

Also, human trafficking is taking place, and drugs are pouring in in record numbers. In fact, Chinese-produced fentanyl and other drugs are being smuggled in through the southern border, and the results are making headlines.

Earlier this year, The New York Times reported (2/13/22), “Drug overdoses now kill more than 100,000 Americans a year—more than vehicle crash and gun deaths combined.” The open borders cause this problem, or at least greatly exacerbate it.

Kerby Anderson, the host of the syndicated radio program “Point of View,” recently told our D. James Kennedy Ministries television audience why he thinks the left pushes for open borders: “I think the hope is that these might be future Democratic voters. And so what we’ll do is we’ll just kind of incrementally allow non-citizens to vote.”

Anderson points to the recent move by New York City to allow 800,000 noncitizens to vote as an example.

Senator Marshall, who said our border is like a “war zone” right now, noted that the public safety department of Texas is trying to hold the line: “All of those people are doing their best, but they’re just simply overwhelmed. This is an unsustainable crisis.”

This article was originally published by JerryNewcombe.com.

** Urgent: Please click HERE to communicate directly with your federal legislators. **

Under the leadership of a Communist Chinese-backed “former” Marxist terror leader, the UN World Health Organization (WHO) and the Biden administration are plotting an unprecedented power grab to build a planetary bio-medical police state. Think Shanghai during lockdown, but worldwide. Leading experts argue that this is truly the emergence of the “New World Order” discussed by Biden and others.

Already, the WHO claims all sorts of draconian authorities, including powers to work with UN member states in quarantining villages or nations, locking down societies, forcing medical “treatments” such as vaccines, and generally crushing medical freedom. When Ebola was spreading, for instance, the Obama administration sent thousands of U.S. troops to help the UN enforce medical martial law in the Ivory Coast.

Now, under changes proposed to the WHO’s “International Health Regulations” by the Biden administration, the dictator-friendly global “health” body would gain the power to carry out its wishes without even the approval or consent of the targeted nation. Not surprisingly, neither the WHO nor the Biden administration plan to consult the U.S. Senate on the matter.

Despite the enormity of the ongoing usurpation, and the drastic implications for freedom and self-government around the world, the establishment media have been largely silent on the issue. Still, concern is growing quickly as more and more experts and activists speak out. Word is starting to spread. But the first major deadline to stop it will arrive in a matter of weeks at a WHO meeting in Geneva starting May 22.

There are two key routes of attack being pursued by the WHO and its allies. In June, a dangerous “pandemic treaty” is set to be considered giving the WHO new “teeth” to enforce its dictates. But the first and most urgent assault on liberty and self-government involves a series of 13 controversial amendments being proposed to the WHO’s so-called International Health Regulations (IHR). The details of the amendments were only released publicly — and very quietly — about a month ago.

The health regime created under the IHR, which was first approved by the World Health Assembly in 2005, is already draconian in its current state. Indeed, these regulations are what supposedly empowered the disgraced global organization to “recommend” the totalitarian policies it deployed worldwide in response to COVID. Much of the leadership in the global war on freedom over the last two years came from the WHO.

But under the new amendments proposed by the Biden administration last month, it would go from bad to catastrophic. Among other concerns, the WHO would acquire new powers to impose its will on nations and peoples against their will. Indeed, the WHO would be able to declare a “health emergency” in any nation, with virtually no limits, going far beyond even actual pandemics, as long as it “could present significant harm to humans.”

One of the most significant changes would remove language from the WHO’s international health agreement requiring a government to consent to the WHO’s determinations before action is taken. Under the new language, all that would be necessary is for the WHO boss to claim there is “a public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC). Even a claimed suspicion of such an “emergency” would be enough to get the gears turning.

Once it declares an emergency, the WHO would be authorized to partner with a dizzying array of global agencies and organizations such as the UN and more under the guise of protecting “health.” That includes UN agencies overseeing food, agriculture, aviation, the environment, and much more. In short, a full-on assault on a nation by a range of would-be global government agencies is in the cards for defiance of the WHO.

The amendments would accelerate the process of turning the head of the WHO into a global health dictator, numerous critics say. That is especially troubling considering that WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, installed by the regime in Beijing, is a former politburo member of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, an ethno-Marxist terror group designated a terrorist organization by governments around the world. Countless critics have called for him to be prosecuted for ghastly crimes perpetrated by the terror group he helped lead, and later the brutal Ethiopian regime he served at a high level.

“If passed, the Biden administration’s proposed amendments will, by their very existence and their intention, drastically compromise the independence and the sovereignty of the United States,” warned Dr. Peter Breggin, one of the leading medical voices sounding the alarm about this power grab and author of the best-selling new book Covid-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey.

According to Dr. Breggin, a Harvard-trained psychiatrist, the same threat applies to the sovereignty and self-government of all of the UN’s 193 member states, representing virtually the entire global population. In an interview with The New American, Dr. Breggin suggested this was a major step in the direction of global government, led by a global “predator class.” The proposed changes would put “enormous new powers” in the hands of “unelected technocrats” — powers that “would be exercised whether the target nation agreed or not,” he explained.

“The amendments would give WHO the right to take important steps to collaborate with other nations and other organizations worldwide to deal with any nation’s alleged health crisis, even against its stated wishes,” warned Dr. Breggin, adding that these measures could include economic and financial attacks orchestrated by the WHO and its partners.

These attacks would hardly be limited to genuine pandemics. “Under WHO’s approach, it would be difficult to find any important national issue that was not a potential health problem,” warned Dr. Breggin, pointing out that the Communist Chinese regime and Bill Gates were the largest influences at the WHO. “With the imminent passage of the American-sponsored amendments to the International Health Regulations, WHO will have free reign for using these expansive definitions of health to call a crisis over anything it wishes in any nation it desires.”

If the WHO succeeds in advancing its agenda, he added, the most important use of these arbitrary authorities would be against the United States — at least if the American people were ever to elect another anti-globalist government such as the Trump administration. Under Trump, the U.S. government exited and defunded the WHO, though the Biden promptly reversed that upon taking office.

“We need to face that these American-sponsored amendments are a great step toward America voluntarily forfeiting its sovereignty to the New World Order or Great Reset — and that without strong opposition, the ratification of the amendments is a foregone conclusion,” added Dr. Breggin. “Our success or failure in stopping the ratification of these amendments will establish the pattern for the future, including WHO’s ongoing effort to make legally-binding treaties that rob nations of their sovereignty.”

But it is even worse than a loss of sovereignty. Instead, it amounts to handing power over all of humanity to a global class of predatory elites interested not in health, but in power and money, he said.

“In reality; they will be forfeiting their sovereign powers to the global predators who rule the UN and WHO, including the Chinese Communist Party and supporters of the Great Reset, like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, and giant foundations and corporations — all of whom benefit from weakening or destroying the sovereignty of the Western nations,” continued Breggin. “Western civilization, and mainly the United States, is all that stands in strong opposition to the globalist takeover of the world, called the New World Order or the Great Reset.”

Already, the WHO and its allies — and the global predators behind the whole machine — have shown their awesome powers. During the COVID crisis, the global agency was the key mechanism for unleashing and coordinating the unprecedented assaults on freedom around the world.

“WHO was highly effective during COVID-19 in implementing the aims of the global predators, led by the groups around Bill Gates and the Chinese Communist Party, in their organized assault and terror campaign against the Western democracies,” Dr. Breggin said. “This purposely resulted in the vast weakening of any potentially anti-globalist, freedom-oriented, patriotic nations, including the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and others. That success may explain why the global predators chose WHO to now deliver a major and potentially lethal death blow to the sovereignty of the world’s nations.”

If not stopped, the ongoing power grabs would make all of it orders of magnitude worse, he said.

WHO Insider Speaks Out 

In an interview with The New American, Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, a prominent epidemiologist and international health scientist in Geneva and a former WHO official turned whistleblower, also warned that the WHO was the leading force behind the tyranny that enveloped the globe during COVID. Already, the situation is dire.

In defiance of its own IHR, which Dr. Stuckelberger taught at the university level, the WHO used fear-mongering to “issue directives that were totally not commensurate to the situation,” she said. If the amendments are passed, it would get even worse. It all shows that the WHO and its backers such as Bill Gates “have moved now, clearly, into global governance,” Dr. Stuckelberger said. “The way they are handling WHO is not like coordinating member states that can decide for themselves.”

The global model truly came into view over the last two years. “Before, in the IHR, we trained [students] that everything should be customized to countries,” she said. But now, “they have brought everybody to obey one governance, to obey a single standard.” “WHO is now more and more taking power of the world together as the only organization to be able … to direct any epidemic preparedness plan or pandemic intervention plan,” she added.

The dystopian developments are moving from rhetoric to reality. At the WHO’s extraordinary World Health Assembly meeting late last year, member governments were given a document headlined “A Guide to a Pandemic Treaty.” Member states voted to accept the procedures to develop that treaty, which is now underway. “They are so sneaky,” she said. “They are going to take the instrument that will be adopted the quickest, and the instrument likely to be adopted the quickest is the International Health Regulations.”

The WHO “Constitution” — something governments have — is likely in place to help turn the agency into a true global authority with governmental powers, Stuckelberger said. And the outfit’s constitution purports to enshrine a “fundamental right” to the “highest attainable standard of health.” It also calls for the “fullest cooperation of individuals and States.” This is basically a blank check for intervention in people’s lives.

In Article 21 of the WHO Constitution, the World Health Assembly is empowered to “adopt regulations” on everything from “sanitary and quarantine requirements” to “standards” for diagnosing diseases. This is what made possible the global tyranny that enveloped the world in early 2020, as well as the unreliable PCR COVID tests that fed the narrative, said Dr. Stuckelberger, who served as president of the WHO’s Geneva International Network on Ageing.

“We have to be liberated from the United Nations,” said Stuckelberger before urging everyone to contact their elected officials, attorneys, and others in a bid to derail the WHO power grab.

Seeking Even MORE Powers 

Another significant WHO threat to medical freedom, national sovereignty, and self-government comes from the proposed “International Pandemic Treaty” being worked on now behind the scenes. Under the guise of controlling future pandemics, this global agreement would also hand vast new powers to the global “health” organization. Advocates of the treaty are proposing to turn the WHO into a global health ministry with vast powers over every person and government on Earth.

Even actual sanctions on nations whose governments defy their would-be WHO overlords are now being peddled. For instance, WHO boss Tedros claimed that “maybe exploring the sanctions may be important.” Meanwhile, German Health Minister Jens Spahn argued “that countries that fail to follow up on their commitments to the WHO should face sanctions.” This sentiment is widespread among global elites.

Indeed, less than a year ago, an “independent” UN panel of high-level globalists convened by the WHO chief claimed the health agency “needs to be empowered — financially, and politically.” This empowering should include making the WHO more independent, creating new “capacities” (powers) at the global level, and establishing a “new international system for surveillance.”

The UN report, which suggests COVID damage could have been mitigated with more global tyranny, also seeks to bring in the “precautionary principle.” Similar to the “climate” narrative, the precautionary principle involves implementing policies — in this case medical tyranny — as a precaution in response to potential dangers rather than in response to a proven threat.

Offering broad insight into the objectives, the report celebrated regimes such as the Communist Chinese dictatorship for their authoritarian response to COVID. Numerous globalist bigwigs working with the WHO and Beijing such as Gates and Schwab have repeatedly praised the barbaric COVID response by Beijing while condemning jurisdictions that respected individual rights and the rule of law. This was all foreseen as far back as 2010 in the Rockefeller Foundation’s “scenario” dubbed Lockstep involving a hypothetical pandemic.

Even as these battles are raging, totalitarians are already scheming on even more draconian powers over basic rights such as free speech. The WHO itself has been working to silence what it considers “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “conspiracy theories” for years. “We’re not just battling the virus,” said WHO Director-General Tedros in the summer of 2020. “We’re also battling the trolls and conspiracy theorists that push misinformation and undermine the outbreak response.” The WHO was “working closely” with Big Tech firms to censor the web, it boasted. Ironically, the WHO has urged health professionals to lie to parents in order to peddle vaccines.

Opposition Grows as Legal Questions Swirl 

In a memo to the WHO, U.S. Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs Loyce Pace cited almost 50 other governments that support the Biden administration’s proposal. Those include the member governments of the European Union, along with numerous other governments including those in India, Australia, Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, and more.

Normally, governments would have 18 months to withdraw from the UN WHO scheme. However, in this case, the time period has been shortened to a mere six months. According to experts on WHO processes, if a majority of member governments consent to the amendments, then they will be considered to be part of “international law.” The amendments to the WHO’s regulations are set to be approved by May 28 of this year if not stopped.

Because of the existing international agreement adopted by member WHO member states almost two decades ago, the UN WHO considers any updates to its International Health Regulations to be binding on all nations and all of humanity, legal experts say. Similar machinations were used to impose UN “climate” schemes on the planet without ratification by the U.S. Senate.

However, there are several constitutional issues at hand as far as the United States is concerned. For one, the states that created the U.S. government never delegated these sorts of powers over “health” to the government they established. If the U.S. government lacks a specific authority or power, it certainly cannot hand a power it does not rightfully possess over to another body — at least not without a constitutional amendment.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed as recently as 1957 in the case Reid v. Covert that the U.S. government could not grant new powers to itself — or delegate those powers to other bodies — merely by adopting international agreements. Thomas Jefferson, a key architect of America’s constitutional system, understood that as well. “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless,” he explained in 1803. “If it is, then we have no Constitution.”

Neither the WHO nor the Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services responded to requests for comment.

In an interview with The New American, journalist and commentator James Rogusky, among the first to sound the alarm on these amendments, called on people to resist while it was still possible. “The time to speak out and stand for your rights is now,” he explained, calling on Americans to share the warnings with those in their sphere of influence and to contact their elected representatives.

In an effort to derail the WHO’s power grab, The John Birch Society recently launched a grassroots effort encouraging lawmakers to nullify the schemes at the state level. “Rather than sitting back and being complacent, state legislators must take bold action to nullify any WHO agreement,” the Society said in a mass email to its national membership.

“Nullification of the WHO’s pandemic treaty wouldn’t be the first time the states have taken such bold action,” the organization’s alert continued. “Among multiple other examples, Alabama in 2012 enacted a strong law banning the implementation of the UN’s Agenda 21 (now Agenda 2030) in the state. Multiple other state legislative chambers passed similar bans.”

Urging activists to contact their lawmakers, the group, which has chapters nationwide, called for strong laws to prohibit implementation and enforcement of the WHO scheme. This could include ensuring that no state or local officials can participate in the enforcement of any actions originating from the WHO or under the authority of its illegitimate agreements.

In an interview with The New American magazine, U.S. Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) expressed support for getting out of the UN entirely. “It’s full of dictators, and it’s also something that I don’t think our sovereign government should defer to,” he explained. Legislation to do just that, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, has been regularly introduced in Congress for decades.

Derailing the WHO’s draconian power grab would be a good step in the direction of neutralizing the ever-increasing threat of globalism and international tyranny. However, over the long term, small victories in battles such as this one will not be enough. A full restoration of sovereignty must be the ultimate objective — and this massive attack on humanity by the WHO may be the perfect catalyst to supercharge the movement to stop globalism for good.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth and your federal representative in the U.S. House and urge them to oppose these dangerous amendments and urge them to enact strong legislation fully preventing the implementation and/or enforcement of the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty.

Read more:

WHO & Global Predators Plot Global “Health” Tyranny

UN Whistleblower: WHO is Tip of the Spear for Global Tyranny

Marxist UN WHO Boss Must Be Put on Trial, Critics Say

Citing Ebola, Obama Boosts UN and Sends Troops to Africa

This article was originally published at TheNewAmerican.com.

The Biden administration calls it the “Disinformation Governance Board” (DGB—word on the streets is that it was going to be named the “Knowledge Governance Board,” but “KGB” was already taken).

The rest of America calls it the Ministry of Truth, a title derived from George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984.

In a rollout almost as wildly inept as Biden’s exit from Afghanistan, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced its new effort to combat “disinformation.” After the past decade of Democrats spreading misinformation and disinformation, aided and abetted by leftist collaborators at the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC, conservatives are justifiably wary about the DGB.

While leftists have sent to their memory hole the mis- and dis- information they spread like manure all across the fruited plains, conservative Americans have not forgotten it.

Conservatives remember the mis- and dis- excrement leftists spread about the cause of the Benghazi attacks, Trumps alleged collusion with Russia (including Adam Schiff’s bald-faced lies), the lurid tall tale about urinating Russian prostitutes, Hunter Biden’s laptop, the origins of the Wuhan virus, and the efficacy of masks. No conservative in American believes this is the kind of misinformation or disinformation targeted by any agency under a Democrat administration.

Leftists in America’s power centers have a habit of spreading lies that they know are lies about conservatives. Leftists in America’s power centers have a habit of deeming stories critical of leftists “misinformation” or “disinformation” without doing any research to confirm their premature conclusions. And leftists in America’s power centers have a habit of justifying their refusal to report stories favorable to conservatives by deeming them misinformation or disinformation.

The timing of this announcement compounds conservative suspicions. The announcement came just before mid-term elections, just after the Biden administration announced it will be stopping Title 42 border expulsions, and just after Elon Musk purchased Twitter, vowing to make it a free speech platform.

Musk raised the hope that there will be no more algorithmic shenanigans that many believe were used by leftist-controlled social media platforms to throw the election to a senile recluse who refused to campaign and yet won by an alleged landslide.

And at the very moment that conservative hopes for the same kind of freedom leftists enjoy were raised, the DGB was born.

If the birth of the DGB weren’t bad enough, just take a look at the unprincipled, flakey head of the DGB: Nina Jankowicz who belts out obscene show tunes like a Broadway wannabe.

U.S. Senator Ron Johnson sent a letter to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas expressing concerns about both the Jankowicz and the DGB that many Americans share:

Ms. Jankowicz herself has been a beacon of misinformation online.  She has published multiple tweets furthering the false media narrative about the Hunter Biden laptop. In one tweet she wrote, “IC has a high degree of confidence that the Kremlin used proxies to push influence narratives, including misleading or unsubstantiated claims about President Biden, to US media, officials, and influencers, some close to President Trump. A clear nod to the alleged Hunter laptop.” In another, she referred to the origins of how the media came into possession of the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop as a “fairy tale about a laptop repair shop.” She has also posted tweets pushing the Trump-Russia collusion hoax and another implying the United States is as corrupt as Ukraine.

Now, DHS is creating a board to counter misinformation focusing on irregular migration and Russia and appointing a purveyor of misinformation to lead that effort. DHS is taking this action just weeks after announcing its plans to stop Title 42 expulsions at the southwest border, which has sparked a surge of illegal migrant crossing at the border, with CBP reporting an average of over 7,000 encounters a day in March 2022 compared with over 5,900 a day in February 2022. DHS even concedes it needs to be prepared to encounter 18,000 migrants a day at the southwest border once Title 42 is lifted.

You claim this Administration’s border policies are humane, but the crises caused by your policies have only added to the many tragedies caused by illegal immigration. I am concerned DHS’s Disinformation Board will only serve to silence or censor those voices critical of your disastrous policies and serve a political cover for your failure to secure the border.

Ironically, Jankowicz was against government oversight of speech  before she was for it:

Imagine that, you know, with President Trump right now calling all of these news organizations that have inconvenient for him stories that … they’re getting out there that he’s calling fake news, and now lashing out at platforms. I would never want to see our executive branch have that sort of power.

Here’s a revolutionary idea for the powerbrokers who want to run other people’s lives: How about finding a principle and then screwing it to a sticking place—like maybe your spine.

Just as leftists have defined conservative moral and ontological claims about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation “hate speech,” so they can ban it, leftists in the Department of Homeland Security will define news stories they hate “misinformation” and “disinformation,” so they can do likewise.

There is one bit of good news peeking out from behind the cloud of oppression that has issued from the penumbras formed by gaseous emanations expelled from the Biden administration. We have learned that the Biden administration has mastered the art of losing an election: Raise gas prices, raise food prices, make America oil-dependent again, make the world a more dangerous place, judge people by the color of their skin and their genitalia, open wide our Southern border, tell parents the government owns their children, and then tell Americans that a powerful, unaccountable government bureaucracy is going to decide which ideas and opinions constitute “misinformation.”

Yep, that should tap the last nail in Joe’s metaphorical coffin. Rational, liberty-loving voters of every color don’t want the government deciding what their children should be taught, which laws can be broken, or whose speech can be banned.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Biden-Administrations-Even-Harder-Fascistic-Turn.mp3

The Biden Administration’s efforts to trample our Second Amendment rights fall into two categories: overt and covert.

In the more overt category is the game of “changing semantics”- the evolution of word usage usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. This trend seems to be happening at an ever quickening pace. Even words once easily defined such as “woman” have the power to stump some of our nation’s most educated–case in point– Ketanji Brown Jackson—President Joe Biden’s recent nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Another word not so easily defined is “terrorist.” Historically considered to be “an individual and/or group committing criminal acts to further ideological goals,” it now is evolving to mean “concerned parents voicing those concerns at a school board meeting.” Recently, parents have had good reason for legitimate concerns. From school policies resulting from the pandemic such as shutdowns and unnecessary masking to abrupt changes in curriculum such as Critical Race Theory and “Comprehensive” Sex Education, parents were showing up at their local school board meeting and demanding to be heard and their views considered.

So last fall, the National School Board Association (NSBA) sent a letter to President Biden urging the administration to classify “these heinous actions” of concerned parents as “the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes” quickly prompting U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to issue his own memo promising “a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel” and directing the FBI and U.S. Attorneys to coordinate with state and local authorities on the matter.

What exactly is going on here? Is the main concern behind the broadening of the term “terrorist” really the safety of school personnel? Or are there more nefarious reasons at work? Gun-control maybe? After all, a terrorist should not be sold a gun. And although Garland testified before Congress: “I do not think that parents getting angry at school boards for whatever reason constitutes domestic terrorism,” FBI whistleblowers revealed that a tag has been created to track “threats specifically directed against school board administrators, board members, teachers, and staff”–effectively broadening the definition of “terrorist” to now include concerned parents.

Which seems to be a just one arm of a emerging world-wide trend. The United Kingdom just passed a bill declaring that anybody that goes against the official narrative with “propaganda” will be charged criminally even if later information reveals they were correct.” This could be the direction we are headed here in the U.S.

In the more covert and disturbing method of trampling 2nd Amendment rights is a trick as old as the hills–the hiding of gun control measures within the recent $1.5 Trillion Infrastructure Bill which sends $13.6 Billion to Ukraine. The bill passed the U.S. Senate with bi-partisan support (68-31) and was signed by President Biden.

Hidden in the 2207 pages of this omnibus bill is the previously rejected Violence Against Women’s Act (VAWA). While its title sounds harmless enough, it originally failed due to its gun-control provisions. The resurrected version contains a major change in current law–the NICS Denial Notification Act of 2022.

Anyone who has purchased a gun or is knowledgeable about the procedure knows that a criminal background check is conducted before someone receives a “green light” on the purchase. This system is utilized literally thousands of times a day across the country and is not without its problems. Would be gun-purchasers often face never-ending delays or, much to their surprise, flat out denials.

According to Gun Owners of America, the FBI itself admits that it’s often wrong on gun-related background check denials. And when an appeal to the denial is filed,  “27.7 percent of [the denials] are overturned”, and the firearm purchase is approved. Yet according to the research published by Professor John R. Lott, these denials are wrong 99 percent of the time!

Now comes the dangerous part. The NICS Denial Notification Act of 2022 passed as part of the Infrastructure Bill will NOW require the criminal investigation of all denials on the National Instant Criminal-Background-Check System (NICS). That’s right. If you happen to be part of the 27.7 percent who are erroneously denied your gun purchase–even when that denial is appealed and corrected–an immediate and mandatory criminal investigation is opened into that person (you!) and sent to not only local authorities but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms as well. This gives local authorities and lawyers the Federal authority to create a database on you and snoop into your social media posts, spending habits, etc. The time to be alert is here.

While all of our God-given, Constitutionally protected rights are precious, perhaps the most precious is the Right to Bear Arms for it is the right needed to protect all of the others.

“The beauty of the Second Amendment is
that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”   
~Thomas Jefferson

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson has provided sufficient evidence for the U.S. Senate to vote against her nomination to fill Justice Stephen Breyer’s seat following the full-court press he received from leftists to abdicate his lifelong seat before the 2024 election. That evidence includes her stupefying claim that she is unable to define “woman” because she’s not a biologist. The press has profligately identified Jackson as a “woman.” Has anyone confirmed that with a biologist?

Jackson’s claim was made in response to a line of questioning by U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) who began by citing the U.S. Supreme Court Case United States v. Virginia in which the buttinsky U.S. government sued the state of Virginia and the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) claiming that the policy limiting VMI admissions to males violated the U.S. Constitution. Blackburn cited Ruth Bader Ginsburg who voted with the majority in overturning VMI’s male-only admission policy:

Supposed inherent differences are no longer accepted as a grounds for race or national origins classifications. Physical differences, however, are enduring. The two sexes are not fungible. A community made up exclusively of one sex is different from a community composed of both.

Blackburn then asked Jackson, “Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?”

Jackson, looking like the proverbial headlight-blinded deer, took an awkward beat and then stammered,

Um, Senator, respectfully, I am not familiar with that particular quote or case, so it’s hard for me to comment as to whether or not …

This was a half-truth. While it likely was “hard” for Jackson to comment on the now-incendiary topic of whether there are enduring physical differences between men and women, the reason for that difficulty is not Jackson’s ignorance about the VMI case.

The reason it is hard for her to acknowledge the obvious truth that even children know is that Jackson didn’t want to offend either the rational members of the U.S. Senate who will vote for or agin her nomination or to offend the “trans” cult, which wields inordinate political power in service of their reality-denying disorder.

Blackburn tried again:

Do you interpret Justice Ginsburg’s meaning of “men” and “women” as “male” and “female”?

And again, Jackson bobbed and weaved:

And again, because I don’t know the case, I don’t know how to interpret it. I’d have to read the whole thing.

Surely, the third time would be a charm, particularly because Blackburn omitted reference to the VMI court case. Blackburn asked,

Can you provide a definition of “woman”?

Here came Jackson’s whopper. She replied confidently,

No. I can’t.

Incredulous, Blackburn asked,

You can’t?

Jackson chuckled and responded,

Not in this context. I’m not a biologist.

Surely Jackson knows how biologists define woman. Biologists defined “woman” long before cross-dressers decided to goose-step in their stiletto-accoutered jackboots through America’s institutions trying to convince Americans that biologists know nothing about the phenomena of man and woman.

Transtopians are baffled at the notion that biologists could know what a woman is because in Transtopia, “man” and “woman” have nothing to do with hard science, anatomy, physiology, genetics, or reproduction. Transtopians believe in pseudoscience and metaphysical alchemy.

Transtopia is a solipsistic Wonderland where words mean whatever Transtopians say words mean and where nothing exists outside each individual’s mind—including minds beclouded by sin, confusion, delusion, and deviant desires. If there’s a mismatch between a Transtopian’s mind/feelings and their anatomically healthy, properly functioning bodies, they just know the error is with their healthy, properly functioning bodies. “Treatment,” therefore, means artificially disrupting normal, properly functioning biological processes and excising normal, healthy anatomical parts as if they’re malignant tumors.

For Transtopians, nothing matters but the subjective feelings of the self, and that’s why Transtopians demand everyone ask every person they meet what their pronouns are. While weeping about being “mis-gendered,” they tyrannically demand compulsory mis-sexing.

Transtopians exalt subjective feelings, except for the subjective feelings of those who live and move and have their being outside of Transtopia. Their feelings, beliefs, and values mean nothing in Transtopia. Transtopians hate anyone who refuses to move body, mind, heart, and soul to Transtopia, ironically labeling dissenters hateful, intolerant, bigoted, and non-inclusive.

Jackson’s expansive ignorance of biology accounts too for why she doesn’t know when life begins or when a baby in the womb is viable. Maybe if she spent less time cozying up with Planned Parenthood, she would free up some time to read a basic biology text. Presumably, her husband—a doctor—or the Internet could help her find out the answers to those not-so-vexing questions.

But perhaps Jackson’s most troubling statement was this:

I have a religious view that I set aside when I am ruling on cases.

That claim drips with the anti-constitutional view that a Supreme Court Justice must sever her religious faith from the exercise of her duties. That view, however, is at odds with the spirit and text of the Constitution which prohibits religious tests for holding office and which guarantees the free exercise of religion. For true Christians, their religious faith inheres every aspect of their lives. It shapes their ethics; morality; political values; and their views of government, human nature, and liberty.

To paraphrase Richard John Neuhaus, that which is political is moral and that which is moral, for religious people, is religious. It is no less legitimate to have political or judicial decisions shaped by religion than by psychology, philosophy, “gender ideology,” or self-serving personal desire.

A democratic republic cannot exist without objective normative ethics that render legitimate the preservation or circumscription of individual rights. Historically, the sources of the absolute, transcendent, objective, universal truths that render legitimate our legal system have been “the institutions of religion that make claims of ultimate or transcendent meaning.” Neuhaus explains that this “does not represent an imposition of the private into the public spheres, but rather an expansion or transformation or recollection of what is public.” He argues that when religion is utterly privatized and eliminated as a “source or transcendence that gives legitimate and juridical direction and form, something else will necessarily fill the void, and that force will be the state.”

While Ketanji Brown Jackson may view her silly non-answers as canny political stratagems, many people view them as dishonest, foolish, and cowardly.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/SCOTUS-Nominee-Jacksons-Stupefying-Answers.mp3

Anyone tired of “masking up” to enter an airport or get on a flight? There may be an end in sight largely thanks to U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY).  Although the air travel mask mandate was set to end on March 18, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) extended the mandate until April 18. But the extension begs the question, “Will it really end then?” Now Paul and others have taken real action to end the mandates once and for all.

The first promising step is S.J.Res 37. This resolution, introduced by Paul this past February, passed in the U.S. Senate recently by a vote of 57-40. Better yet, it represents bi-partisan support with eight Democrat senators voting in support of the resolution: Michael Bennet (D-CO), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) and Jon Tester (D-MT). In typical fashion, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) was the only Republican to vote against the bill.

Still, this measure, which expresses disapproval of the CDC’s mask mandate, faces significant challenges in the days ahead if it is to become law. The amount of votes it received are not enough to override President Biden’s veto threat. Moreover, proponents must garner enough support to overcome U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s reluctance to let the member of the House vote on it. But should the resolution fail to pass through its trip to becoming law, all hope is not lost.

Members of Congress, 17 to be exact, have filed a suit against the CDC which would end the federal mask requirement for passengers both on commercial flights and in airports. First names on the suit are, once again, U.S. Senator Rand Paul as well as U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), both of whom filed the suit in their home state of Kentucky. Other GOP House members: Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Paul Gosar (D-AZ), Dan Bishop (R-NC), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Andrew Clyde (R-GA), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Warren Davidson (R-OH), Bob Good (R-VA), Brian Mast (R-FL), Bill Posey (R-FL) and Matt Rosendale (R-MT).

One of the best implications of this suit is its potential to end the government and, especially, unelected bureaucrats’ overreach in making declarations — calling them mandates, but treating them as law. According to Rosendale, those practices are nothing more than part and parcel of

“the fear mongering narrative of COVID-19. The CDC has forced Americans to wear masks on commercial flights for two years without legal standing. A mandate is not law, and Congress never passed legislation codifying the CDC’s mask wearing demands.”

And there is science to back up the ending of the air-travel mask requirement: COVID-19 transmission on airplanes is unlikely due to the ventilation systems. These systems not only mix outdoor air with recycled air via HEPA filters, but they limit air flow between rows – a key reason behind the lack of connection between outbreaks and commercial air travel. According to an article in The Journal of the American Medical Association,

“The risk of contracting COVID-19 during air travel is low. Despite substantial numbers of travelers, the number of suspected and confirmed cases of in-flight COVID-19 transmission between passengers around the world appears small.”

Confirming this view is Sebastian Hoehl, a researcher at the Institute for Medical Virology at Goethe University Frankfurt in Germany. “An airplane cabin is probably one of the most secure conditions you can be in,” he noted.

Given the above information, it is clearly time to end the unwarranted and unscientific policy of mandating masks in airports and airplanes especially since the mandates have ended in virtually all other public places. If you’d like to be sure they do. . . .

Take ACTION: Please click HERE to contact your U.S. Representative and let him/her know how you feel about this. Also, please click HERE to let U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi know she should allow a vote on the measure.

U.S. Senator Paul seems to truly be the hero in this fight for “following the science” and for ending government overreach. Early last week, he introduced a pertinent amendment, a “separation of powers” so to speak, that would eliminate Dr. Anthony Fauci’s position as the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and replace it with three separate positions effectively limiting its power.

“We’ve learned a lot over the past two years, but one lesson in particular is that no one person should be deemed “dictator-in-chief.” No one person should have unilateral authority to make decisions for millions of Americans,” said Dr. Paul, a physician. “To ensure that ineffective, unscientific lockdowns and mandates are never foisted on the American people ever again, I’ve  introduced this amendment . . .This will create accountability and oversight into a taxpayer-funded position that has largely abused its power, and has been responsible for many failures and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

For more information, click HERE.

The truth of the adage “a picture is worth a thousand words” is one we have all experienced firsthand. While we may chat with a friend about the stunning sunset we witnessed last night or warmly remark on the smirk our child or grandchild makes which melts our heart, we are often left feeling like we aren’t quite communicating the impact of the experience. However, when we pull up the picture of the sunset or smirk on our phone, we often find that the friend is able to respond with a heartfelt “Ah!” The picture speaks volumes.

U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) understands how important pictures are when he introduced H.R. 648 in the U.S. Senate. This hopeful legislation would require abortionists to make an ultrasound picture of their preborn child available to any woman seeking an abortion. This bill, the “Ultrasound Informed Consent Act”  would provide in all 50 states what is already available to some extent in 28 states. Modeled after the National Right to Life “Right to Know and See,” the potential power of the “Ultrasound Informed Consent Act” to protect the unborn is clear.

For a newly expectant mother, the mystery of life inside the womb is easy to feel disconnected from, especially before the mother feels those first kicks of life. But provide that expectant woman with the picture of her baby’s heartbeat flickering on the ultrasound screen and that mystery feels much less shrouded. This picture, like the one of the sunset or the smirk, has the power to elicit the same, “Ah.” A picture speaks a thousand words.

And while ultrasound technology is not by any means new, having been first used in the 1950s, many do not know that since its earliest use it has its roots in the right-to life movement,

“‘Lesser known is that Ian Donald held his own faith-based opposition to abortion. Deborah Nicholson, author of a comprehensive thesis on the medical history of obstetric ultrasound, notes that he often performed ultrasound scans on women seeking terminations of pregnancy with the express intention of dissuading them from pursuing this action. In particular, the scan images would be shown to these women, while the implications of what was displayed on the image [were] carefully pointed out by the eminent professor’”

Ian Donald (Obstetrician) and Tom Brown (Engineer) are credited with being the first people who crafted the prototype [ultrasound] system. Donald, who passed away in 1987 would certainly applaud Senator Marshall’s bill.

Not applauding, however, are certain members of Congress, according to Carol Tobias, National Right to Life president,

While this reasonable legislation should attract bi-partisan support, nearly every Democrat in Congress rejects even the most common-sense protections for women and their unborn children.

These Democrats, led by U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have thankfully failed in their attempt at sweeping legislation to overpower states’ rights regarding numerous limits on abortion just last week. Their failure, though narrow, paves the way for Marshall’s “Ultrasound Informed Consent Act” to gain traction providing women with the chance to see that awe-inspiring first glimpse of their unborn child–a glimpse that has the power to speak when words fail.

Take ACTION: Please click HERE to send a message to your federal representative to encourage him/her to support H.R. 648.  The defenders of commercialized abortion like to say their guiding principle is “choice” — yet women considering abortion are truly not in a position to make an informed choice without having sufficient, objective information. Such complete and accurate information on the reality and status of her pregnancy and of the child she is carrying in her womb is essential to her psychological and physical well-being and to her free exercise of autonomy.

Before, after and while you are taking action in support of the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act, please pray that our lawmakers hear and understand why this legislation is so important! Pray that moment in support of this legislation continues to grow, and that eyes would be open to the humanity of pre-born babies.

Read more:

If More Women Saw Ultrasounds of Their Baby, More Women Would Reject Abortion (LifeNews.com)

On January 26th, various news outlets reported that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who was appointed in 1994, planned to announce his retirement. This announcement was followed by multiple reports suggesting that Justice Breyer may have been ushered out by political activists/strategists within the Democratic Party. One report by FoxNews.com claimed that “groups such as Black Lives Matter and Women’s March launched an effort calling for the justice’s retirement.”

With the midterm elections just eight months away and a “red wave” predicted, time was of the essence. U.S. Senate Democrats could not afford to wait to fill the seat occupied by the oldest liberal member of the Court, even if that meant ushering Breyer out before he was ready to go.

Last Friday, President Joe Biden nominated federal appeals court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to fill Breyer’s seat. According to background information provided by the White House, Judge Jackson, who currently serves as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, was born in Washington, D.C. and grew up in Miami, Florida. She earned a BA from Harvard University in 1993 (magna cum laude), and then attended Harvard Law School, graduating cum laude in 1996. Judge Jackson clerked for a variety of judges after earning her JD, and in 1999 clerked for Justice Breyer. She worked in private practice and then as a public defender.

President Barack Obama nominated Judge Jackson as vice chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 2009. She was confirmed unanimously for that position by the U.S. Senate in 2010 and served there until she was nominated by President Obama for a position on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She was again confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2013. Judge Jackson served on the District Court until 2021, when President Joe Biden nominated her for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The U.S. Senate again confirmed her appointment in 2021 by a 53-44 vote with three Republicans joining all 50 Democrats voting “yea:” Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Judge Jackson is currently visiting Senators as she begins the interview process for the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will commence confirmation hearings. If she is confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Judge Jackson would be the second youngest justice on the court—behind Justice Amy Coney Barrett—and the first Black woman to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Of course, President Biden publicly and proudly announced to the nation that the race and gender of his nominee were pre-qualifying conditions for his consideration. (White males need not apply.)

So, what about her judicial philosophy about the U.S. Constitution, the sanctity of life and religious freedom? Well, according to an article by law professor Jonathan Turley,

What is most notable of the statements of support for Judge Jackson is how little is said about her judicial philosophy or approach to the law. The fact is that we have a comparably thin record of opinions in comparison to recent nominees. While she obviously has opinions as a district court judge, there are few opinions that shed light on her judicial philosophy. That is not surprising for a trial judge who issues hundreds of insular decisions on trial issues or outcomes. This is not about the years of experience on the bench, which I have repeatedly noted is a great strength in the nomination. It simply means that we have fewer opinions offering substantive insights into her approach to legal interpretation. The question is whether we will learn substantially more in this confirmation.

We can hope that the confirmation hearings for Judge Jackson, which are scheduled for March 21 through 24, will flesh out more about her views on key issues and her judicial philosophy.

Kelly Shackelford, President, CEO, and Chief Counsel for First Liberty Institute has a different perspective. He isn’t waiting to sound the alarm:

In nominating Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Biden is selecting a judicial activist for the Supreme Court. Her record from the beginning of her career shows hostility to religious liberty, free speech, and other constitutional rights. The American people do not want a liberal extremist on the Supreme Court. If confirmed, Judge Jackson’s judicial activism will place the constitutional rights of all Americans in jeopardy.

Other concerns about Judge Jackson’s positions have been raised by our friends at Family Research Council and Family Policy Alliance.

The growth of the federal government’s power over the last two years is problematic. Increasingly, lawmakers are using the pandemic as an excuse to control every aspect of citizens’ lives. It now seems that they want to further control and access the health records of their citizens. The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 550, the Immunization Infrastructure Modernization Act of 2021, on November 30, 2021. The bill, sponsored by U.S. Representative Ann Kuster (D-NH), is a complex idea that will create a network of computers and databases capable of further tracking immunization for the local, state, and federal governments. It had 14 cosponsors — 10 Democrats, including Illinois’ Lauren Underwood, and 4 Republicans. 

The tracking of vaccines is not new to the United States. The Immunization Information System (IIS) was created in 1997 and operated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). According to the CDC, the database is confidential, and that it monitors “populations-based” immunizations. In other words, as the IIS is currently structured, the CDC can only access information from Public Health Departments and clinicians to determine how many vaccines they have distributed, not who they have vaccinated. This information is typically used to analyze the distribution rate of vaccines. For example, the CDC can determine how many children were vaccinated against chickenpox in a given year, but they cannot determine which child was or was not vaccinated.

Citizens and some conservative lawmakers all voiced concerns that H.R. 550 will track individuals more closely and possibly lead to a database of vaccinated individuals. The bill allocates $400 million to create what has been called “improvements” to the IIS, making enforcement and implementation of vaccine mandates easier. The so-called improvements would include: 

• grants awarded to local and state public health departments and other agencies to expand information systems

• support for “real-time immunization record data exchange and reporting, to support rapid identification of immunization coverage gaps”

• “implementation of policies that facilitate complete population-level capture” (meaning everyone is added to the database)

• increase of computers and data servers available to public health departments and the CDC and to maintain those systems on an ongoing basis

• increases the authority of the CDC and public health departments

These are just a few of the policies that the bill would establish. Supporters of the bill, including U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), argue that the legislation restricts the amount of funding and provides greater privacy for health information. Crenshaw stated, “And so there was a Republican-led effort for this exact provision, to decrease the funding for it and ensure that if states take that money they have to make the data anonymous and only collect it at the population level so you can’t be tracked.” Representative Crenshaw fails to see the implications of creating a database that can track populations so precisely that it captures an entire population, say a county, and their vaccination rate in real-time. This tracking would indicate which cities or counties were the most resistant to vaccination and potentially lead to aggressive injunctions specified towards that population.

Another major problem with this bill is that although it does not create a direct database, it funds the creation of the needed technology to store such a database. Once this technological system is in place, it is a short jump for legislators to create a new bill that would implement a vaccine database using the pre-existing IIS computer database system.

The bill was most widely supported by the Democratic members of the U.S. House, with 214 voting yes and none voting no. Unfortunately, 80 Republicans also voted yes. In Illinois, three Republicans sided with the Democrats on the bill, including U.S. Representative Rodney Davis (R-Taylorville), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ottawa), and Darin LaHood (R-Peoria).

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to ask that they vote no on the Immunization Infrastructure Modernization Act of 2021. During the pandemic and subsequent fearmongering, we cannot lose sight of the freedoms that we should all hold so dear. It is up to each individual and their doctor to determine the best course of treatment, not federal bureaucrats. Surveillance from our government is intrusive and dangerous as it leads to further governmental control in our lives. 

You can also sign a petition with the non-profit organization Stand for Health Freedom, HERE. 

Continue to pray for those individuals who have been tragically affected by this pandemic. Also, pray for our leaders, country, and freedom as we struggle through these dark days.

President Boris Badenov and his prickly assistant Vice President Natasha Fatale have devised yet another inept scheme to try to salvage their feckless administration. They decided to pretend that the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol was analogous to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the coordinated Islamist attacks on 9/11. Boris and Natasha hope Americans will be so beguiled by these analogies that they will turn their attention away from the insuperable failures of the Badenov administration.

Further, Boris and Natasha are using the unfortunate Jan. 6 riots to inflame a race conflagration their party started and fuels in order to secure the votes of persons of color, especially blacks. They’re counting on Americans of color not looking too closely at how Democrat policies have ravaged impoverished communities.

Read yesterday’s words from Kamala Harris who will live in infamy—or if she’s really lucky, maybe she’ll live just in irony:

Certain dates echo throughout history, including dates that instantly remind all who have lived through them—where they were and what they were doing when our democracy came under assault. Dates that occupy not only a place on our calendars, but a place in our collective memory. December 7th, 1941. September 11th, 2001. And January 6th, 2021.

I’m likely not alone in remembering exactly where I was when radical Islamists hijacked planes twenty years ago, killing 2,977 innocent people, including 8 children, and wounding 6,000. I have no idea where I was when the shameful U.S. Capitol riots took place one year ago, during which no rioter/trespasser killed a single person.

Flailing futilely about to make her warlike analogies plausible, Harris said,

On that day, I was not only Vice President-elect, I was also a United States Senator. And I was here at the Capitol that morning, at a classified hearing with fellow members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Hours later, the gates of the Capitol were breached.

I had left. But my thoughts immediately turned not only to my colleagues, but to my staff, who had been forced to seek refuge in our office, converting filing cabinets into barricades.

Take note, Harris wants the nation to know that she wasn’t concerned about the welfare of only her elite colleagues but also her lowly staff.

As the “gates” were “breached,” her staff sought “refuge” behind their filing cabinets. Sounds exactly as I imagine sailors doing on Dec. 7, 1941. Her staff need not have worried. Although Harris had already left, she was doing what Congressional leaders do best: She was thinking about her staff, quivering as they awaited certain death.

Harris continued her imaginative retelling:

What the extremists who roamed these halls targeted was not only the lives of elected leaders.

What they sought to degrade and destroy was not only a building, hallowed as it is. What they were assaulting were the institutions, the values, the ideals that generations of Americans have marched, picketed, and shed blood to establish and defend.

How does Natasha know the insurrectionists/terrorists/enemy combatants “targeted” the “lives of elected leaders”? Wait! Could she have been colluding with them?

What enrages many Americans is how differently hypocrites like Harris treat January 6th as compared to the months of rioting, arson, looting, and assaults on American institutions, values, ideals, and law enforcement officers committed by Antifa and BLM in 2020. Harris even urged Americans to contribute to a fund to bail out of jail those who assaulted that which “generations of Americans have marched, picketed, and shed blood to establish and defend.” Harris tweeted this in June 2020:

If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.

Harris, second-in-command of the party committed to court-packing, illegal immigration, voter fraud, and filibuster-busting, and fervent supporter of setting leftist criminals free, apparently doesn’t see the irony in this statement

On January 6th, we all saw what our nation would look like if the forces who seek to dismantle our democracy are successful. The lawlessness, the violence, the chaos.

Suddenly Harris cares deeply about the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment, and the rule of law:

What was at stake then, and now, is the right to have our future decided the way the Constitution prescribes it: by we, the people — all the people.

We cannot let our future be decided by those bent on silencing our voices, overturning our votes, and peddling lies and misinformation; by some radical faction that may be newly resurgent but whose roots run old and deep.

You see, the strength of democracy is the rule of law. The strength of democracy is the principle that everyone should be treated equally, that elections should be free and fair, that corruption should be given no quarter.

If she’s truly committed to the U.S. Constitution, maybe she should encourage her party to stop attacking the Second Amendment. If she truly opposes the silencing of voices, maybe she should encourage her fellow leftists to stop canceling speaking engagements, stop trying to get people fired for expressing their views on race and sexuality, and stop trying to force Americans to use Newspeak when referring to men and women. If she believes the “strength of democracy is the rule of law,” then as the border czar, maybe she should try to stop border lawbreaking.

Next came one of the central goals of the Badenov administration, -the only hope Dems have for winning elections in 2022 and 2024:

And the work ahead will not be easy. Here, in this very building, a decision will be made about whether we uphold the right to vote and ensure free and fair election.

Let’s be clear: We must pass the voting rights bills that are now before the Senate. …

Who knew suffrage was under assault right now in the U.S. Capitol?

Democrats, practiced at the art of deception—particularly through the redefinition of terms—have redefined efforts to ensure free and fair elections and reduce voter fraud as racist efforts to suppress the black vote. They’re doing this, not to help communities of color, but to help Democrats maintain their positions of power.

But increasing numbers of blacks and Latinos now see the Democrat charade of altruism for what it is: a selfish, grasping effort to acquire more power for an entrenched bureaucracy who have little to no regard for those who have trusted them and given them that power for decades even as their communities of color die.

Black and brown communities see that Democrats have destroyed their babies, their families, their communities, and their schools.

They see that Democrats are destroying the bodies and spirits of their children. Democrats have created a hyper-sexualized, morally untethered America that robs children of fathers and leaves mothers alone to try to piece together the broken lives of their children.

They see the decaying and dangerous communities that fatherless boys create.

They see that wealthy, powerful Democrats send their children to the most expensive private schools in the country while denying educational choice to families trapped in dangerous, poor-performing urban schools with union teachers who refuse to work.

They see wealthy powerful Democrats aiding and abetting lawless border crossing in order to import votes. And persons of color know that it will be their urban communities that will suffer most from illegal immigration, while the wealthy and powerful are inoculated from the worst of those effects.

Yes, Americans of color see that Democrats spread government money to buy votes. They see the division Democrats sow in order to grow their power and the lies they tell to maintain it.

Kamala Harris should live forever in infamy.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/The-Vice-President-Who-Will-Live-in-Infamy.mp3

More than two dozen pro-family organizations signed onto an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court to oppose the Biden Administration’s tyrannical vaccine mandate. The brief, filed on Monday, January 3, 2022, urges the Court to protect religious liberty and oppose this sweeping and unchecked mandate, which requires COVID-19 vaccination in employers with 100 or more employees with little to no regard for the religious liberty interests of American citizens.

In November, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under the Biden Administration issued an unilateral vaccine mandate for the aforementioned employers. It did so without the approval of the U.S. Congress and without even allowing for public comment, which is a key part of the rule-making process. Because the mandate circumvented these critical checks, the mandate “undermines rule-of-law values,” the brief argues, “for it puts important policy decisions in the hands of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats…”

More importantly, by placing this power in the hands of an unelected agency, there is a great threat to religious liberty. “In the last 20 years,” says the brief, “[the U.S. Supreme Court] has repeatedly had to step in to protect religious exercise from agency hostility.” The OSHA vaccine mandate is evidence of this continued hostility, as it did not offer any guidance for religious employers or employees. Rather, it creates a potential religious conflict with its mandate, and then “places responsibility for that conflict in the lap of the employer.”

Putting aside the many strong opinions Americans have on the vaccine issue, this sweeping mandate by OSHA both exceeds the agency’s authority, and backhands religious liberty, a bedrock value of our nation.

IFI Family will keep you informed on any action by the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learn MORE:

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