Three recent articles, one on NBC on June 15, one in Vanity Fair on June 16, and one on CNN on June 18, futilely attempt to recast conservative objections to the use of public schools to promote Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a “freakout,” “national panic,” “moral panic,” and “hysteria.” When leftists lack sound arguments, they resort to demagoguery. Any means to the ends of preventing conservatives from being as vocal as leftists in shaping culture are, in the narrow minds of leftists, justified.

This introductory sentence in the Vanity Fair article illuminates much of the problem with leftists when it comes to their use of public schools and funds to promote Critical Race Theory:

The right-wing freakout over critical race theory—or, at least what some Republican politicians and pundits think it is—has been playing out simultaneously in statehouses and TV studios, with lawmakers crafting bills to ban schools from teaching about systemic racism and conservative media figures fanning the flames.

Reading left-wing analyses of anything pertaining to race or sex requires a close look at every term to determine whether and how it’s been redefined. By “freakout” leftist writer Charlotte Klein, who writes for the appropriately named Vanity Fair Hive (lol), means the objections of “Republican politicians, pundits,” and “disgruntled parents” to the use of public schools to promote uncritically CRT and its many manifestations.

CNN’s Nicole Hemmer views opposition (what she calls “hysteria”)  to public school advocacy of assumptions derived from CRT as a red herring used by conservatives to divert attention away from the institutional racism poisoning America:

[A]rguing about critical race theory shifts the conversation away from the continued consequences of structural racism.

That conversation opens up challenging issues about equity, affirmative action, reparations, and government intervention to dismantle racist systems.

Both Klein and Hemmer assume that systemic/structural racism exists. And they assume the objections of conservatives to the promulgation of CRT in government schools are impelled by their desire to stop teaching about racism. In the view of leftists, the only way to think about race and racism is through a CRT-beclouded lens.

Moreover, neither Klein nor Hemmer acknowledges that CRT (and its many incarnations manufactured by racist “antiracism” profiteers) is a theory—a collection of arguable ideas—about race; race relations; oppression; “identity,” American history; equity; and equality (not to mention biological sex, homoerotic attraction, and cross-sex identification).

Leftists don’t want students to study assumptions derived from CRT along with critiques of CRT and resources that offer dissenting views on those topics. Leftists want CRT promoted uncritically and dissenting resources banned.

NBC slyly suggests that schools don’t even teach CRT, so what’s all the brouhaha about:

Virtually all school districts insist they are not teaching critical race theory, but many activists and parents have begun using it as a catch-all term to refer to what schools often call equity programs, teaching about racism or LGBTQ-inclusive policies.

Weeelll, that may be technically true. School administrators are gifted at the art of speaking technical truths with forked tongues. But take a look at the “equity” programs, racism teaching, and “LGBTQ-inclusive” programs. Then go read a primer on CRT. If I were a betting woman, I would bet you’d find some, shall we say, overlap.

NBC writes,

There’s no shortage of free publicity for the cause. The conservative focus on critical race theory is pervading right-wing news publications, like Fox News and Breitbart.

And CNN’s Nicole Hemmer writes that according to Media Matters,

Fox News … has mentioned critical race theory … nearly 1,300 times in the past three-and-a-half months.

What NBC failed to mention is the ample free publicity from the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, CNN, Daily Beast, Slate Magazine et al. for the arguable assumptions derived from Critical Race Theory and embedded in government schools, colleges and universities, corporate diversity re-education, and military diversity re-education.

And Hemmer failed to mention the countless times arguable assumptions derived from Critical Race Theory have been uncritically “mentioned” in resources used in classrooms and professional development training throughout the country over the past 30 years. Her failure to acknowledge what can only be described as decades-long CRT advocacy in government schools reveals that she is either profoundly ignorant or indefensibly deceitful.

NBC’s lengthy hit-job describes the epic plague that conservative opposition to CRT has–in the view of leftists–become:

The groups swarm school board meetings, inundate districts with time-consuming public records requests and file lawsuits and federal complaints alleging discrimination against white students.

Awww, poor wittle school districts having to endure swarms of locust-like conservatives attending board meetings and forcing districts to use valuable indoctrination time to reveal what goes on behind the scenes. Leftists are looking back wistfully at the good old days when conservatives had no idea what resources were used in classrooms and professional development—you know, the days before our re-educated youth looted and burned down our cities in racist, maskless, spittle-fueled insurrections.

NBC’s piece tries to recast long-overdue organized efforts by conservatives as some sort of secret nefarious plot to take over schools. But every strategy and tactic NBC attempts to besmirch has been used by leftists for decades. Leftists want to stop conservatives from doing exactly what leftists have been doing for decades and which enabled them to gain control of government schools. They desperately want to stop conservatives from organizing. They want to smear conservatives for using think tanks, political action groups, non-profits, and legal foundations to aid in the effort to restore pedagogical soundness to government schools.

But here’s what’s remarkable about the high dudgeon of leftists: This is their playbook.

The article mentions school board meetings attended by conservative “local residents, many without children in the district,” implying without asserting that it is illegitimate for local taxpayers without children currently attending schools to object to funding the promulgation of leftist ideas about race and sex.

What the NBC article didn’t mention is that for years leftists without children in district schools have both spoken at and served on school boards. And leftists have spoken at school board meetings who don’t even live in the district whose policies or curricula those leftists were addressing.

In a richly ironic statement cited by NBC, Sonja McKenzie, “a member of the board of directors of the National School Boards Action Center” claims to be “disturbed” by efforts of conservatives to oust leftist school board members:

The thing that disturbs me the most about politicizing school boards is there is no mention of kids. It’s not community centered, it’s centered on political thought and theory and things that don’t connect to education. 

Surely, she jests. Leftists have been colonizing and politicizing school boards, state boards of education, university teacher-training programs, teachers’ unions, the American Library Association, the Modern Language Association, and educational conferences for decades to ensure leftist political thought and theory on race and sexuality shape curricula, policy, practices, and professional development—all of which are intended to “connect” to the “education” of “kids.”

Just curious, how are the efforts of community members to oust leftists on school boards “not community centered”?

Here’s NBC’s objective reporting on two school board meetings in Nevada:

In Nevada, Washoe County’s school board halted in-person meetings in April, after residents filled a large auditorium and lobbed insults and threats of violence during the public comment portion. …

During the most recent meeting, which lasted 11 hours, speakers railed at school board members, calling them Marxists, racists, Nazis and child abusers, among other epithets.

Kristen De Haan, the mother of a senior in a district high school, said she attends the meetings in support of an expanded social justice curriculum and LGBTQ-inclusive sex education.

“I don’t always agree with the board by any stretch of the imagination,” De Haan, who is white, said. “But listening to the anger, and what truly feels like hatred … it’s really hard. I definitely get glares when I go up and speak.

What is notable about this “reporting,” is how different it is from reporting about school board meetings when conservatives who oppose, for example, co-ed locker rooms, obscene novels, or CRT, are routinely called racists and ignorant hateful bigots who support the bullying of children. No anger or hatred in those epithets, no siree. Just love, sweet love.

Notable too is missing context. Why might some community members call school board members Marxists, racists, or child abusers? Could it be that the accused school board members support the use of government funds to teach positively about controversial racist, Marxist CRT-infused ideas? Could it be that some parents view teaching children that their white skin makes them oppressors constitutes child abuse? Could it be that some parents view the sexual integration of children’s private spaces—also supported by CRT-infused organizations like BLM™—as child abuse?

Perhaps nothing better demonstrates both the arrogance and panic of leftists than the title of Charlotte Klein’s article: “The Right-Wing Meltdown Over Critical Race Theory is Spiraling Out of Control.”

To leftists, conservative efforts to stop the heretofore unobstructed ideological rampage of leftists through taxpayer-funded schools must be controlled. The Hive will leave no child’s mind unmolested by leftist dogma.

Leftists have thrown down the gauntlet. Take it up and slap ‘em—hard—figuratively speaking, of course.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/leftistsFreakOut_audio.mp3

On January 22, 1973, U.S. Supreme Court Justices William Rehnquist and Bryon White rightly identified in their dissents that Roe v. Wade was a bad (to put it mildly) decision:

“The decision here … partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

“There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted [more than a century]. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter [prohibiting abortion].”

Among the numerous and grievous consequences of the unlawful decision in Roe, and in combination with improved medical technology, is the fact that the medical profession has overwhelmingly persuaded parents that the death of their unborn children known to have Down syndrome is preferable to the life they would otherwise lead, despite God’s command and overwhelming evidence to the contrary [1].

On April 2, 2019, to prevent this selective abortion from eradicating its population with Down syndrome [2], Arkansas enacted the Down Syndrome Discrimination by Abortion Prohibition Act.

On April 9, 2021, in perhaps the most persuasive case against Roe to date, the Arkansas Attorney General officially asked the U.S. Supreme Court (after defeat in the lower courts) to affirm this law. The case, known as Rutledge v. Little Rock Family Planning Services, is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

On May 13, 2021, the Illinois Family Institute joined a friend of the court brief in support of the prohibition [3], along with numerous other patriotic Americans, including the American Center for Law & Justice, the Jerome Lejeune Foundation (a Down syndrome advocacy group), Americans United for Life, 82 United States Senators and Representatives, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the State of Missouri and 21 other states.

IFI’s joining the brief is very important for three key reasons.

First, the name “Illinois Family Institute” prominently displayed in official proceedings, on the morally right side of the issue in this potentially landmark case, makes a very strong statement that the People of Illinois are not the extremist, Marxist, “blue state” ideologues most are led to believe by virtue of the lopsided Chicago control of our electoral votes and our state government.

Second, focusing precisely on the particular result of genocide of a particular group gives a tangible, rational, and emotionally-charged illustration of the truth of the tyranny resulting from Roe.

Roe v. Wade is a 54-page opinion which uses euphemisms and grand language to hide the fact that it writes entirely new law, which deprives a small and defenseless minority of unborn persons of their most important Constitutional right: life itself (known non-euphemistically as murder).

“Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death.” – Leviticus 24:17

American values protect minorities of human beings from tyranny of the majority and, even more, genocide, as is rapidly becoming the case with Down syndrome children.

These uncomfortable truths have been glossed over by the Court and the culture in addressing the euphemisms of “abortion” and “terminating her pregnancy,” rather than the truth of the matter of murdering [4] innocent persons in America according to the desire of others.

Rutledge begins to destroy these dishonest euphemisms by focusing on the almost complete genocide of a precise group of persons, those with Down syndrome, who are valuable and would otherwise lead happy and productive lives.

Selective abortion of babies with Down syndrome is the very sort of tyranny of the majority that led our founders to despise Democracy (rule by a majority) as a form of government, and rather create a Republic (rule by law) based only upon securing those inalienable rights given to us by our Creator. Rutledge presents this in a way that both the Court and common Americans can see and feel clearly.

Finally, this particular Court has the sound jurisprudence necessary to finally recognize and overturn the great injustice of Roe, redeeming the moral authority of the court from the judicial tyranny of its last five decades [5].

For approximately 34 of the years following Roe, either Rehnquist himself, or his former clerk and current Chief Justice John Roberts, have led the High Court.

Six of the current justices have expressed judicial understanding consistent with Justice Rehnquist’s dissent in Roe.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett chose not to kill her unborn son (now 8) pre-diagnosed with Down syndrome.

Pray for all members of the U.S. Supreme Court.

For those who are believers and to whom God has given judicial wisdom, that they will be strong and courageous, leading the Court and the Nation from error into the path of righteousness and able to withstand Principalities and Powers, as well as the flesh and blood of the leftist culture that will attack them mercilessly.

For those who espouse foolish and unlawful judicial philosophies, that God would turn their hearts (the King’s heart is in the hand of the LORD) to righteousness and destroy their efforts to usurp His authority by promoting unrighteousness and tyranny.

Pray for God’s favor upon this case, that the Court would choose to hear it (grant “certiorari”), and seeing this illustration of judicial tyranny against a few (depriving these small, disabled, and helpless persons, within the jurisdiction of the United States of America, of their rights to life and liberty without ANY process of law or ANY protection of the laws), rule authoritatively that Roe was wrongly decided and must be overturned.

Pray that God would bring shame upon any Americans who would continue to promote this evil.

[1]   Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Leslie Rutledge, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Arkansas, et al., v. Little Rock Family Planning Services, pp. 2-9.

[2]    Box v. Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc., 9139 S. Ct. 1780, 1791 (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring) (“In Iceland, the abortion rate for children diagnosed with Down syndrome in utero approaches 100%.”).

[3]    Brief Amici Curiae, Rutledge v. Little Rock Family Planning Services.

[4]   Historically, “anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death.”  According to the Indiana Code, 35-42-1-1, a person who knowingly or intentionally kills another human being commits murder, a felony.  States since Roe have added vague words to accommodate their legalization of murder, for example, Illinois Code 720 ILCS 5/9-1 specifies that a person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder.

[5]    The three theories of constitutional interpretation taught in contemporary law schools: Natural Law (e.g., Clarence Thomas): there is an objective higher law (of the Creator in our case, though they don’t typically mention that source) which man can never supersede, and upon which the Constitution is based; Strict Construction (e.g., Scalia, Rehnquist): the Constitution can only be understood as what the document itself was understood to mean when passed; and Living Constitution (e.g., Oliver Wendell Holmes, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor): the Constitution means what Justices believe it means based upon their own current understanding (a subterfuge to enable Judges to ignore the text of the Constitution and substitute their own opinions).  Holmes is the author of Buck v. Bell, saying that “three generations of imbeciles are enough,” while upholding forced sterilization of the intellectually disabled.)

Constitutionally speaking, the United States Seat of Government cannot be an individual State.

On Thursday, April 22, however, 216 members of a powerful special interest faction within the U.S. House of Representatives, the Democratic Party, passed H.R. 51, attempting to usurp the power of the People of the United States under the Constitution, converting the District of Columbia from the federal seat of government to a state.

H.R. 51 is clearly unconstitutional.

The Democrats’ purpose for doing so, is yet another naked power grab. Only the U.S. Constitution stands in the way of a two-seat Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate. The citizens of the District of Columbia, who do vote in Presidential elections, vote overwhelmingly (almost 90 percent) for Democrats.

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution expressly gives Congress the authority:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States”

The District of Columbia has been so ceded and accepted for the past 220 years.

Founding Father James Madison explained the ongoing necessity of a federally controlled seat of government in Federalist 43:

“The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it…Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy…The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, requires that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it.”

The general need and requirement for a U.S. “Seat of Government,” and specifically not making that Seat a state, is therefore subject to change only via U.S. Constitutional amendment.

A combination of D.C. citizens seeking more representation and Democratic politicians seeking more power for themselves, have for decades promoted D.C. statehood, and other schemes, to give political control of the seat of U.S. Government into the hands of a single State.

Such a change has nonetheless been widely recognized by both Democrats and Republicans as requiring a U.S. Constitutional amendment.

In 1964, even U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, a Democrat, deemed efforts to bypass this requirement unconstitutional.  Numerous others in the legal community have agreed to this obvious textual requirement.

There has indeed been unusual consensus on this issue, for the entire history of U.S. Government under the Constitution.

If they so choose, current residents of the District of Columbia are free and easily able to live under the authority of one of several nearby states and still work in the Seat of Government.

In order to benefit their own special interests, many on the left will tell you that you need someone else (them) to tell you what the Constitution means.  Such is not the case.

The ability to understand the U.S. Constitution was not intended to be relegated to an ivory-towered, elite educational class.

On the contrary, it is foundational to the U.S. system of government that the common citizen, can and should, understand the U.S. Constitution, in order to self-govern and hold their representatives accountable.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution requires proposal of an amendment by 2/3 of both houses of Congress or state legislatures, and approval by 3/4 of state legislatures.

Congress, under the control of both dominant political parties, has previously remained unwilling to usurp the U.S. Constitution’s authority, and unable to gain the large consensus necessary to accomplish a Constitutional amendment.

The Representatives who passed this resolution know this or are derelict in their responsibility to have done the trivial amount of research needed to know it.

Today’s Democratic Party though, has shown no restraint of honesty or integrity in its quest to rule over the People. Moreover, “progressive” activists will stop at nothing, including subverting the U.S. Constitution, to expand their own political power and advance socialism.

Promoting and passing laws that attempt to intentionally bypass the Constitutional amendment process is no small matter. To do so is a violation of an elected official’s oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, “so help me God.”

This is why belief in the Creator, and oaths before Him, are required of public officials in the United States.

“If you make a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay fulfilling it,
for the Lord your God will surely require it of you, and you will be guilty of sin.”
~Deuteronomy 23:21-23

All 216 of these men and women (and they are men and women) have violated their oath of office, and should therefore be disqualified from holding public office.

Fortunately, the filibuster, requiring 60 members to end debate on any bill in the U.S. Senate, stands firmly in the way, making passage of  H.R. 51 nearly impossible.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.  ~John Adams

So let us be thankful to the Creator, who is the official foundation upon which our government has been established, for protecting us from this tyranny for a time.

In addition to prayers, we the people (especially those who are moral and religious) must read, understand, and speak truth regarding the Constitution, and replace fools who do not, those who seek only power, luxury, and the elite prestige of affiliation with a political party for themselves.

Let us boldly proclaim that statehood for the District of Columbia is clearly unconstitutional and call for the removal of dishonest elected officials who would break their oath of office to support H.R. 51 or any similar government act.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

Written by Liberty McArtor

Proponents of court-packing argue that adding more judges to our nation’s judiciary is the magical solution to urgent problems, and even paint the picture that doing so is an act of goodwill. But far from being a necessity, court-packing is a brazen power-grab by one political party to fix the number of U.S. Supreme Court justices or federal judges to get the political results they want.

And when we look at the history of court-packing across the world, there’s no way around it: Court-packing is a dangerous scheme with severe implications that would erase freedom and rights for future generations and destroy America’s constitutional order.

To equip you—and all Americans—in exposing the lie and the radical plan to overthrow America’s court system, here are four common (or rather, bogus) court-packing claims debunked with facts and logic.

1. Myth: The Supreme Court has been stolen.

Fact: The U.S. Supreme Court currently has nine highly qualified, legitimately appointed and confirmed justices. The far Left just doesn’t like some of them.

The reason court-packing advocates say the U.S. Supreme Court was “stolen” is because they disagree with the political party and the president who appointed the latest three justices (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett). For instance, they claimed that Justice Barrett’s confirmation happened too quickly. But as First Liberty President and CEO Kelly Shackelford has noted, justices have been confirmed in the same fashion nearly thirty (30) times. In fact, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom Justice Barrett replaced, was confirmed in a similar time frame.

Ironically, stealing the U.S. Supreme Court is exactly what would happen if the coup attempt to add two, four or even six more justices were to succeed.

2. Myth: Court-packing has popular support.

Fact: Court-packing is widely unpopular—and historically has been within both parties. 

Polls conducted in the last few years show the majority of Americans oppose court-packing.

• In 2020, a New York Times-Siena College poll found that fifty-eight percent (58%) of likely voters opposed packing the U.S. Supreme Court.
  
• In 2019, Rasmussen polls found that only twenty-seven percent (27%) of Americans favor packing the U.S> Supreme Court with additional justices.

What’s more, opposition to court-packing is prevalent across the political spectrum.

Here are some quotes from several politicians and prominent figures on both sides of the political aisle, starting with the current president:

• President Joe Biden (D):

In 1983: “President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the court. … But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make.”

In 2020: “I’m not a fan of court packing.”

• Ted Cruz (R-TX)

In 2020: “Packing the Court means one very specific thing: expanding the number of justices to achieve a political outcome. It is wrong. It is an abuse of power.”

• Joe Manchin (D-WV)

In 2020: “I want to allay those fears, I want to rest those fears for you right now because when they talk about whether it be packing the courts, or ending the filibuster, I will not vote to do that.”

• Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

In 2020: “I can’t think of a more destabilizing event for America than changing the number of [justices] on the Supreme Court every election cycle, because it becomes a winner take all for the Court.”

• Jon Ossoff (D-GA):

In 2020: “We shouldn’t expand the Supreme Court just because a justice may be confirmed with whom we disagree on policy.”

• Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1933 – 2020):

In 2019: “If anything would make the court look partisan…it would be that—one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’”

The truth is both parties have long opposed court-packing, and the sudden flip by a select group of elites on the Democratic side on this issue exposes this scheme for what it really is: a barefaced power grab.

3. Myth: Court-packing is a routine procedure.

Fact: Changes to the size of the U.S. Supreme Court are very rare in America’s history, and the few partisan attempts at court-packing have been failures.

Congress has changed the number of U.S. Supreme Court justices only a total of seven times in American history. The radical Left distorts this fact to make you think court-packing is normal. But in nearly 250 years and 120 Congresses, the seven prior changes (many of them due to workloads and the addition of states to the Republic) do not offer a justification for packing the Court today. On the contrary, the seven changes show how rare court-packing is in America. What’s more, the number of U.S. Supreme Court justices hasn’t changed at all since 1869—that’s over 150 years!

4. Myth: Court-packing will save democracy.

Fact: Court packing will crush civil liberties by making the U.S. Supreme Court a partisan tool of whoever holds power.  

Using a baseball metaphor, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts once said of a judge’s role, “It’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”

What would happen if several partisan justices were added to the U.S. Supreme Court—justices who were instructed to “pitch” and “bat” for the team that appointed them? The U.S. Supreme Court would become an extension of the party currently in power. The fundamental principle of the “separation of powers” would be destroyed.

If more and more partisan judges are added to courts every election cycle, those in the minority—people who don’t agree with the current ruling party—would have their freedom squashed under the weight of a rigged judiciary. Civil liberties like religious freedom would have no stable protection.

Far from saving the principles of our democratic republic, court-packing would lead to the demolition of constitutional rights—just like it happened in other nations, such as Venezuela and Argentina.

This article was originally published at FirstLiberty.org.

Written by Kay C. James

As a Black woman who grew up in the segregated South, I’m shocked and appalled with the race-baiting from mostly White left-wing politicians who are throwing around the “Jim Crow” label to score political points in the debate over strengthening our voting laws.

To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen’s line from the 1988 vice presidential debate with Dan Quayle: I knew Jim Crow. Jim Crow was no friend of mine. And these common-sense voting laws that states are adopting are no Jim Crow.

Frankly, it’s insulting that politicians are trying to manipulate Black folks like me into thinking that voting reforms that actually protect our right to vote are somehow racist. It’s insulting to be lied to, and — yes, I’m going to say it — it seems awfully racist to be thought of as so ignorant and gullible.

These state election reforms are about one thing—making it easier for American citizens to vote, while making it harder for cheaters to cheat.

Yet everyone from President Joe Biden to The New York Times to Coca-Cola and those in Hollywood are labeling voting reforms adopted in Georgia and other states as voter suppression and the new Jim Crow. There’s even a U.S. Senate hearing this week being held around this lie called, “Jim Crow 2021: The Latest Assault on the Right to Vote.”

Growing up as a Black teenager during the 1960s, I knew the tremendous sacrifices and the dangers that my friends and relatives endured to secure the right to vote for Black Americans. I myself was part of the Civil Rights Movement when I was thrust into an effort to desegregate my middle school in Richmond, Va.

So let me be perfectly clear: I have zero interest in disenfranchising or suppressing the vote of any portion of the population.

But that’s not what’s happening in Georgia or other states pursuing election reforms. And don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

As we’ve heard from the few truth tellers there are in the media, the new Georgia election reform doesn’t discourage voting or suppress votes. In fact, the availability of absentee ballots and early voting is a lot more robust than what it is in most “blue” states.

And Georgia provides a free voter ID to people without ID and has exceptions that mirror federal law. Turnout in the state as well as studies also show that ID requirements don’t suppress votes; and polling shows that voters, including Black voters, agree that voter ID is a common-sense reform. Claims that Black people are somehow unable or unwilling to obtain identification are insulting and have no basis in fact.

“You know what’s racist? Assuming because I’m black that ‘I just don’t have the capability of getting an I-D,’” Rep. Burgess Owens recently tweeted. I couldn’t agree more.

So why is the left calling these reforms racist? It’s a scare tactic and an attempt to rally support for a voting bill currently in Congress ironically called the For the People Act, or H.R. 1.

H.R. 1 would create a federal takeover of elections and force changes to election laws that would actually allow for greater fraud and election tampering. It would diminish the very voting rights that my relatives in the 1960s, the women suffragists of the early 1900s, and the men and women of the armed forces throughout our history fought so hard to gain and protect.

Under H.R. 1, no one has to prove they are who they say they are in order to vote. It’s likely to automatically add ineligible individuals like non-citizens to the voter rolls. And it outlaws or restricts safeguards that help states maintain accurate voter rolls to prevent people from voting twice. In other words, it would allow illegal votes to cancel out our legal ones.

And that’s just scratching the surface of this terrible law.

H.R. 1 isn’t for the people; it’s about creating more power for certain politicians. The people who support this bill expect that most illegal votes will favor left-wing politicians, and they are willing to dilute our legal votes by encouraging more illegal ones.

They are lying and calling common-sense voter protections racist to make people think that there is a groundswell of voter suppression coming from the states so that they can pretend to save us all with H.R. 1. But they aren’t really interested in protecting us; all they are interested in is helping themselves.

The right to vote is one of the most sacred rights that we as free citizens can exercise. That’s why we must protect it and not allow politicians to get away with pushing sinister bills like H.R. 1 that would diminish that right.

Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our republic, and every citizen — no matter their color, ethnicity, background or political persuasion — must be able to trust the voting process and its results.

The very future of a free nation depends on it.

Kay C. James is president of The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).
This article was originally published by the Washington Times.

I (and likely millions of other Americans) were surprised to learn from the racism sleuths among us that Georgia recently enacted a Jim Crow voter suppression law the likes of which America has never seen. In light of that disturbing revelation, I wondered if there were any other states with such laws and was even more surprised to discover that from sea to shining sea, America is riddled with Jim Crow laws. There are so many Jim Crow voter suppression laws in so many states that I don’t have time to list them all, so I’ll just highlight a few.

According to the New York Post, Chuck Schumer may have some ‘splainin’ to do:

the Empire State still makes it harder to vote than does the state [Georgia] that’s drawing the boycotts. New York offers eight fewer days of early voting and requires a valid excuse to vote absentee.

Yes, Georgia will now ask for a valid ID to vote absentee, but lets you out of the requirement if you attest that you don’t have one.

New York even has a ban similar to Georgia’s new prohibition on the distribution of food and drink in voting lines that President Joe Biden labeled “Jim Crow in the 21st century.” …

Those “mobile ballot drop-off” vans that Georgia just restricted? New York doesn’t allow them at all.

It’s not only New York that attempts to suppress the black vote by requiring an excuse to vote absentee. Delaware, Connecticut, and New Hampshire also require such excuses.

Georgia’s new law expands existing early voting requirements. The “new law …  adds a mandatory weekend day for early voting, requiring two Saturdays of early voting. The old law required one.” To be truly fair, early voting should be expanded another few months. But Delaware hasn’t begun offering any early voting days. Those won’t start until next year. Maybe Delaware voters had to wait for vote-suppressor Joe Biden to leave the state before getting rid of that Jim Crow relic.

It’s weird that Biden and Schumer were elected year after year while remaining silent on their states’ voter suppression laws. I thought silence was violence.

Oh, but there’s still more voter suppression hiding in plain sight, like the fact that photo IDs are also required at polling places in Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

Georgia’s law makes some changes to the number and location of ballot drop boxes—drop boxes that were added in 2020 because of the pandemic. If you’re alarmed by that, you won’t believe what else I learned. Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia provide no ballot drop boxes. Who knew New Hampshire has been suppressing the black vote?

We all know what needs to happen now. Every professional sports event scheduled in these states must be canceled.

After ruminating about and researching the prevalence of racist voter suppression laws, I began wondering what other forms of racist suppression I may not have noticed while traipsing about America draped in my white privilege. Well, those who oppose Jim Crow photo ID laws better be sitting down for this next bit of shocking news I discovered about America.

America has flying suppression laws, driving suppression laws, car rental/purchase suppression laws, welfare access suppression laws, alcohol purchase suppression laws, medical care access suppression laws, bank account access suppression laws, food stamps access suppression laws, house purchase and house rental suppression laws, apartment rental suppression laws, marriage suppression laws, pet adoption suppression laws, hotel/motel access suppression laws, cell phone purchase suppression laws, blood donation suppression laws, gun purchase suppression laws, and hunting/fishing license suppression laws.

Who wants to live in a country like that? Not me. So, I went on a search for countries without racist suppression laws and much to my dismay, I learned there are very few places in the world devoid of racism.

Here are just a few of the racist countries that prohibit mail-in voting: Albania, Armenia, Belgium, Belarus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden.

Here are a few of the racist countries that ban early voting: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and United Kingdom.

Here are a few of the racist countries that ban ballot collecting (i.e., proxy voting, “ballot harvesting”): Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungry, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Portugal, and Spain.

All the coolest countries are racist!

In my research, however, I came across some confusing information.

First, I read something by Hans von Spakovsky which threw an ideological monkey wrench into the “Georgia Is a Hotbed of Racism” narrative:

Georgia provides a free photo ID to anyone who doesn’t already have one. …

Section 25 of the bill doesn’t even require voters to provide a photocopy of their ID. Instead, the voter can simply write “the number of his or her Georgia driver’s license or identification card” on the application for the absentee ballot.

Moreover, if the voter doesn’t have such a Georgia ID card, she can “provide a copy of a form of identification listed” in another code section of Georgia law (§ 21-2-417(c)). And what does that code section say? That you can satisfy the ID requirement with a “copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of such elector.”

Now where do you think the Georgia legislature got that language? They got it from federal law, the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Section 303(b) of this law (codified at 52 U.S.C. § 21083) requires an individual who registered to vote by mail and who is voting for the first time in a federal election (whether in person or by mail)  to instead provide “a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that show the name and address of the voter” if he doesn’t have a “current and valid photo identification.”

The language on voter IDs for absentee ballots in the new Georgia law is thus identical to the language in federal law, promulgated through the Help America Vote Act. And guess who voted to approve this federal law in 2002? Why, then-Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware. In fact, the vote was 92 to 2, and included in the “yes” votes were Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.; and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

Were they all imposing “Jim Crow” on American voters? I don’t seem to recall the Major League Baseball Players Association boycotting any of the states of these senators—or any of the other senators who voted in favor of the Help America Vote Act. Or boycotting their own stadiums, which require IDs to pick up will call tickets.

Then I read something even weirder than the U.S. Senate re-elections after re-elections after re-elections of racist vote-suppressors Biden and Schumer. I read that Missouri, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas rank in the top ten states for black voter turnout despite their voter suppression laws. Black voter turnout in North Carolina is virtually tied with that of New York and beats black turnout in California by a smidge.

A study conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research and published in 2019 found that voter ID requirements have virtually no effect on voter turnout:

For all the heated debates around strict voter ID laws, our analysis of their effects obtains mostly null results. First, the fears that strict ID requirements would disenfranchise disadvantaged populations have not materialized. Using the largest individual-level dataset ever assembled to study voter participation, we do not find any negative effect on overall turnout and registration rates or on any group defined by race, age, gender, or party affiliation.

Confusing? A bit, but oh, well, I’m with President Biden who once said, “We choose truth over facts.”

I did learn that one news report about the Georgia law was wrong, and this will be a huge relief to many. For those people of color and colorless people who regularly lose consciousness from thirst or starvation while waiting in line to vote, just pack up all your care and woe. Georgia will feed you.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/States-with-Racist-Jim-Crow-Voter-Suppression-Laws.mp3

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!

How can someone as foolish and manipulative as U.S. Representative Marie Newman get elected to Congress? Oh, yeah, she ran in Illinois, the land that once gave the nation Abe Lincoln but now saddles the nation with Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth, Jan Schakowsky, Sean Casten, and Brad Schneider.

On March 17 Newman, the anti-life, self-identifying Catholic, spoke in a U.S. Senate hearing in support of the execrable Equality Act, which has nothing to do with Equality and everything to do with advancing an alchemical superstition about the alleged ability of humans to become the opposite sex through desire, cross-dressing, hormone-doping, and mutilating cosmetic surgery.

She did what “progressives” do best. Rather than make a cogent, rational argument based on reason and evidence, she instead tried to manipulate feelings through a personal “narrative.” She told the sad tale of her troubled teenage son who now pretends to be a woman. Unfortunately, since she chose to exploit her son’s problems on the national stage in order to pass legislation that will affect the entire nation, others have a right to respond.

Newman began her exploitative sermonette by making this remarkable claim, the ramifications of which she clearly has not thought through:

The most important thing in life is to be authentic. I think we all understand that. … Imagine if I asked any of you … on the committee today to simply try being someone you absolutely are not … To try to be something that you are not every day is very difficult. Do this for a week, a month, a year and I guarantee you will feel deep depression, great anxiety, and yes, even suicidal.

Newman neglected to define “authentic.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines “authentic” as “conforming to fact and therefore worthy of trust, reliance, and belief.” As such, a man seeking to pass as a woman is the antithesis of authenticity.

Perhaps Newman believes an “authentic” life means living in accordance with deeply held beliefs. If so, then she should understand that for theologically orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims living an authentic life precludes treating humans as if they are the sex they are not. In other words, the Equality Act would compel many Americans to live inauthentic lives. It would compel them to participate in a destructive lie.

From the context, however, it appears Newman links authenticity to living a life of bondage to unchosen, powerful, and persistent desires, no matter how disordered, irrational, or delusional. To Newman being “authentic” appears to refer to yielding to desires that impel artificially induced cessation of natural biological processes and surgical mutilation of healthy, properly functioning parts of sexual anatomy.

Applying consistently Newman’s definition of an “authentic” life would mean that those who experience an unchosen, powerful, and persistent desire to be an amputee (i.e., those with Body Integrity Identity Disorder) should be treated as if they are amputees even if they are equipped with fully functioning, healthy limbs.

And those who experience unchosen, powerful, persistent sexual attraction to children should not be prohibited from acting on those desires, for trying to be someone they are not will—Newman guarantees—result in deep depression, great anxiety, and suicidal ideation.

If trying to be “someone you absolutely are not” is life’s greatest evil, should prideful, vain people stop trying to be modest and humble? Should greedy, selfish, narcissistic people stop trying to be generous, unselfish, and empathetic? Should slothful people stop trying to be industrious? Should people consumed by lust yield to their insatiable appetite for pornography and prostitutes?

Newman arrogantly presumed that everyone on the committee understands that “the most important thing in life is to be authentic”—as she understands authenticity. Perhaps, however, some on this U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee—for example, Marsha Blackburn, Vicki Hartzler, or James Lankford—believe an authentic life means living in a way that corresponds to material reality or to Scripture. To many people, living an authentic life requires denying their desires daily.

Continuing in her presumption about what everyone knows, Newman said,

[W]e already have freedom of religion in our Constitution, and this act does not discriminate against religion, as we all know.

Actually, lawmakers in thrall to the “trans” cult stripped the Equality Act of religious protections, and numerous legal scholars have warned that the passage of the Equality Act poses the most significant threat to constitutional protections of the free exercise of religion ever in America’s history. Newman is either outright lying or indefensibly ignorant.

Mary Hasson, graduate of Notre Dame Law School and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., testified at this same hearing. She made clear what Newman tried to obscure:

The Equality Act threatens serious harm to religious believers and religious organizations, stripping away crucial protections afforded under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—a law enacted in 1993 with overwhelming, bipartisan support. The Equality Act attacks First Amendment rights as well, inserting language that attempts to tip the scales against believers if they assert claims under the First Amendment or Equal Protection.

The Equality Act reaches far beyond Bostock (which pertained to workplace discrimination) by expanding “public accommodations” to permit discrimination claims wherever Americans “gather,” even virtually. The result? Churches, synagogues, temples, faith-based schools, soup kitchens, and shelters for battered women will be subject to government coercion pressuring them to compromise their religious beliefs or risk endless litigation.

Recipients of federal funds, including houses of worship, religious schools and other faith-based organizations are litigation targets under the Equality Act as well—even for something as simple as maintaining sex-segregated bathrooms. This means a Muslim food bank, Catholic homeless shelter, or Christian center for female survivors of domestic violence will be punished for doing good while following their religious teachings.

Similarly, any private school that enrolls students who receive Pell grants or who participate in school lunch programs are subject to the Equality Act’s sex discrimination provisions. Urban Catholic schools, for example, which provide life-changing education to low-income children would face an untenable choice: violate their deeply held religious beliefs about human nature, sexual difference, and marriage or close their doors to students who rely on federal help. Adoption and foster care programs run by religious believers who desire to serve the most vulnerable are also at risk.

Newman sneakily perpetuated the lie that minor children who experience gender dysphoria will commit suicide unless they “transition”—a euphemism for pretending to be the opposite sex. No one can “transition” from one sex to the other. Newman said,

More than five years ago, before she [sic] had transitioned, my daughter [sic], at just 14 years old had experienced deep depression and anxiety. Unable to identify the cause of her [sic] pain, she [sic] told her [sic] parents that the only two solutions she [sic] felt would solve it was either suicide or running away.

Newman’s son may have felt despair—he may have felt the only solutions were suicide or running away—but his feelings do not mean he was born in the wrong body. Many teens feel despair for many reasons. And now it’s becoming increasingly difficult for teens to access counseling that can help them uncover those reasons.

In addition, there is much mis- and dis- information about suicide and gender dysphoric children circulated eagerly by the “trans”-cult and its ideological allies—misinformation/disinformation that has been dispelled by medical experts who lack the cultural imprimatur and reach of “trans”-cultists. Newman and other members of Congress might do less societal harm if they would read more widely.

It appears Newman may have gotten her son tangled up in one of the many “therapeutic” programs that are, in reality, profiteering “trans”-advocacy programs staffed with activists who couldn’t identify mental health if it slapped them upside their indoctrinated noggins:

[W]e enrolled in a local day therapy program. One night after her [sic] program, my daughter [sic] perked up in her [sic] chair at the dinner table, excited to share some news. She [sic] told us she [sic] had figured it out. “Mom, I’m not a boy. I’m a girl, and my name is Evie Newman.” Everything had clicked at that moment. She [sic] had been pretending to be something she wasn’t. She [sic] wasn’t being authentic, and as we all know, it is the hardest thing in the world to pretend every day. It was the happiest day of our lives.

Newman’s son was not pretending to be a boy prior to the night he made his sudden perky announcement. He always was a boy and remains in perpetuity a boy.

Newman argues that the Equality Act will merely afford her son “civil rights” of which he is currently deprived:

Signing the Equality Act into law. … will ensure that Americans like my daughter [sic] are afforded the same civil rights already extended to every other American across the nation. … We’re not asking for anything special or different, equality and nothing more. No American should have to live a lie.

Baloney. Is Newman arguing that her son is currently denied the right to vote, assemble, speak, exercise his religion freely, own a gun, petition the government, or get a fair trial?

The irony is rich in her claim that “No American should have to live a lie” as she argues for a bill that will compel all Americans to live the lie she and her family are choosing to live.

Demanding that a condition constituted by desire and volitional acts that many view as immoral be treated like objective conditions with no behavioral features like, for example, race or biological sex is, indeed, asking for something special and different.

The irony continues in her statement about religion and sports:

I encourage all of you to not weaponize religion and not weaponize red herrings about sports.

Newman absurdly described the desire of theologically orthodox Christians to live authentic Christian lives when they refuse to affirm a deceit as “weaponizing religion.” And she described the desire of authentic girls not to be forced to compete athletically against biological males who impersonate females as a “weaponized red herring.” In Newman’s view, only the affirmation of “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices can be authentic.

Nearing the end of her Oprah-esque testimony, she almost spoke some sense. She began,

Truth is real and should be a part of this [Equality] act.

Then she had to go and ruin it by making yet another patently false claim:

And it is.

Nope, there is no truth about sex, civil rights, or equality in the Equality Act.

It’s astonishing that the most powerful nation in the world has leaders whose ethical philosophy hasn’t advanced beyond that of a heathen adolescent.

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

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/IL-Congressional-Rep.-Newman-s-Dumb-Plea-for-Equality-Act.mp3

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!

Written by Victoria Cobb

It’s back!  The decades-old Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has been brought back from the dead — again.

As a refresher, the ERA was passed by Congress in 1972 with a deadline of getting 38 states to ratify it by 1979.  It fell short of that deadline, so Congress extended it to 1982. However, the ERA still fell short of the necessary number of states needed for ratification.  In fact, some states rescinded their original ratification after recognizing that this was not just about elevating the status of women in society as it purports, but that it was also about putting into the U.S. Constitution the right to an abortion. Fast forward about fifty years and liberals have latched on to this “Trojan horse” as a way to push their entire abortion agenda, as well as their radical LGBT agenda.

If all “sexes” are equal, and our society no longer has a shared definition of sex, biological men who believe they are another sex must be treated and validated in the same fashion as biological women.  This new viewpoint of sex actually ensures the undermining of the original stated goals of the ERA.  If men can play within women’s sports, Title IX need not exist because biological girls must compete on identical grounds as biological males in all areas including sports, negating the very programs that were expressly put into place to provide opportunities for girls.

But now the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill, H.J.R. 17, that would strip the ERA of its original deadline. This bill is now heading to the U.S. Senate. Should it pass, states that made a decision about the intents and purposes of language fifty years ago will be held to that decision, regardless of changes within the elected leaders of the state and our society as a whole.

Take ACTION: Please contact your U.S. Senator today and ask them to vote “no.”

This article was originally published at the Family Foundation blog.

Jan Schakowsky, the U.S. Representative from Evanston, Illinois, diminutive in intellectual and moral stature, has sponsored a bill to repeal the Helms Act. Her bill, H.R.1670, is titled “Abortion is Health Care Everywhere Act,” and if passed, would open the floodgates of American money to fund abortions overseas.

According to the liberal Guttmacher Institute, the repeal of the Helms Act will result in Americans funding the slaughter of 19 million babies every year, mostly black and brown babies. And Schakowsky has the audacity of a lifelong politician whose conscience has shriveled up to call the Helms Amendment “racist.”  Just think about that: a privileged white woman is calling her bill that will fund the slaughter of 19 million black and brown babies every year an anti-racist bill.

Schakowsky and her collaborators emphasize the health risks for mothers in third world countries, which we know is just a sham. We already know the health of humans doesn’t concern them because the sponsors of this bill support abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for any or no reason.

Moreover, the ethical solution to maternal mortality risks, or the general health risks that accompany life in third world countries, or poverty is not a grotesque proposal to fund the slaughter of humans while in the womb. Word to Schakowsky, even poor people are created in the image and likeness of God and have a right to live—including poor black and brown people.

In 2015, Schakowsky exposed her intellectual and moral deficits–again–saying,

There’s nothing very pretty about any kind of medical procedure. Frankly, a conversation about exactly what happened in heart surgery would probably make people squeamish as well.

The reason all decent people recoil from images of aborted humans is not that the photos lack prettiness or even that they’re bloody. The reason tiny, severed human arms and legs make people squeamish is that they’re severed human arms and legs.

Some reminders for Schakowsky and her unwomanly original co-sponsors Diana DeGette (D-CO), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Nita Lowey (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Jackie Speier (D-CA), and Norma Torres (D-CA):

• The product of conception between two humans is inarguably a human.
• Killing innocent humans is not health care.
• Having the slaughter of one’s offspring paid for by others is not a “right.”
• Black and brown babies are no less valuable than white babies.
• Babies born into poverty are no less valuable than babies born into wealth.

Schakowsky is the second wife to her second husband, Robert (Bob) Creamer, a Saul Alinsky-trained community organizer, which should tell you everything you need to know about their ability to create communities conducive to human flourishing.

Creamer served time in prison for tax violations and bank fraud committed when he ran the Illinois Public Action Fund on whose board sat Jan Schakowsky. During his trial, other shady Illinois characters sent letters of support for Creamer, including the morally vacuous Dick Durbin, racism profiteer “Rev.” Jesse Jackson, and Barack Obama’s accomplice David Axelrod.

More recently Creamer was the subject of a Project Veritas exposé that revealed his involvement in Clinton campaign/DNC-coordinated schemes to sabotage the 2016 presidential election by hiring people—including mentally ill and homeless people—to agitate at Trump rallies in order to elicit reactions that the press could use to criticize Trump.

If the wealthy Schakowsky wants to kill black and brown babies in foreign countries, she, her corrupt husband, and their political cronies should use their own filthy lucre to do it.

Using the language of “rights,” feticide-defenders like Schakowsky are appealing to the respect Americans have for “negative rights”—also known as liberties—(e.g., the right to vote, assemble, exercise one’s religion, and speak freely), which are not accompanied by any obligation for others to subsidize them.

What feticide-defenders are really suggesting—without explicitly saying—is that women have a “positive right” (i.e., an entitlement) to abortion, which imposes a duty on others to subsidize it.

Abortion, however, is not an entitlement, and society has no obligation to pay for women to get them. Neither wanting something; nor really, really wanting something; nor experiencing suffering from not obtaining this desperately desired thing means the public has an obligation to provide it.

No matter how many times feticide-defenders call the killing of incipient human life “health care,” it’s not. Killing human fetuses is neither health care nor reproduction. It’s death facilitation and anti-reproduction. If leftists want to help poor women in other countries kill their offspring, leftists have the choice and negative right to do so.

In a 1991 article titled “Abortion and the Discreet Domesticity of Evil,” Father Paul Mankowski wrote,

[T]he language of the “reproductive health center” … is deliberately designed to obscure reality; it allow us to pretend that nothing disruptive is happening inside these sinister, functional buildings. … The language doesn’t really deceive, but it somehow gives permission to those who want to keep up the charade, to make-believe that the incinerators are only burning garage, to make-believe that the people in white coats are in the business of healing, not killing.

Our task, Father Mankowski argued, is to “call a spade a spade”:

To give things their proper names. To replace euphemism with the stark truth. To speak about what goes on inside those brick walls. To call evil evil—no matter how foolish or awkward it makes us appear, no matter how chilly or furious our fellow citizens become. And, above all, to work with every resource at our disposal to hinder, frustrate, and bring to a standstill the engines of human destruction.

Like Planned Parenthood which targets babies of color for profit, Schakowsky and her co-conspirators should rename her bill the “Killing Babies of Color Everywhere Act.” That way at least everyone everywhere will know what the bill is really about.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative to ask him/her to vote against H.R.1670. Despite what “progressives” claim, abortion is not health care. Abortion is the intentional destruction of an innocent pre-born human being.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Schakowsky-Wants-Americans-to-Fund-the-Killing-of-Babies-of-Color-Everywhere.mp3

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!

The Newsweek article by Natasha Chart and Rabbi Yaakov Menken begins with these words: “It would be hard to accuse an Orthodox Jewish rabbi and an agnostic feminist leader of walking in lockstep.” All the more would this be true if you added Catholics to the mix, then threw in some evangelicals. What cause could bring such disparate people together, all united as one?

Religious Rights and Women’s Rights at Stake

As Chart and Menken wrote, “We agree entirely that the Equality Act is a fatally flawed, and even hateful, piece of legislation.” Or, as expressed by the chairmen of five U.S. bishops’ committees, the Equality Act will “discriminate against people of faith” — meaning, of Christian faith or other faiths.

As summed up by evangelical leader Mat Staver, “HR 5 is a bill that pushes the LGBT agenda on all people and targets Christianity in every area of life — including the church. There will be an increase of instances where Christians and others are being punished unless they violate their beliefs in order to comply with such a law. And that is just the beginning of unconstitutional chaos in America.”

In short, not only would religious beliefs be trampled in the name of “equality,” but simple human rights — most specifically, women’s rights — would be trampled as well. (As Chart and Menken wrote, “Women, check your ‘privilege.’”)

That’s why many people of faith and non-faith are uniting together against the so-called Equality Act.

Just consider what it would mandate across the nation, with no possibility of religious exemptions.

Here are some potential scenarios.

What Might Soon be Illegal “Discrimination”? Plenty.

An out and proud gay schoolteacher wants to teach at an Orthodox Jewish day school. Under the Equality Act, the school could not refuse him a job because his out and proud lifestyle violated Jewish law. That would be discrimination. As for Orthodox Jewish synagogues, if challenged, they would not be allowed to have separate seating for men and women at public events. Discrimination again!

What if a biological male who identifies as a female, yet still likes to sport a 5-o’clock shadow, wants to work at a Christian preschool, reading stories to the children? The school could not say, “We’re sorry, but we’re not hiring you. That would be confusing to the children.” Under the Equality Act, that would now be discrimination.

Here are a few more scenarios to consider.

You are a professional counselor, and an 18-year-old girl struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions comes to you for help. She had been raped when she was 12 and since then, has found men repulsive. Yet she always wanted to be married and have children and she’s interested in getting to the root of her unwanted same-sex attractions. Under the Equality Act, counseling her would be illegal.

You run a women’s shelter for abused women and have always refused to house biological males who identify as transgender women. You have limited facilities, and there’s no way your clients, already traumatized, should be forced to share showers and bathrooms and bedrooms with biological males. Under the Equality Act, you would be forced to accept transgender “women.”

You are the principal of a public school with an excellent girls’ track team, and your top female athletes win college scholarships on a regular basis. Under the Equality Act, you would be forced to allow boys who identify as girls to compete with the girls, thereby robbing them of both victories and scholarships, not to mention personal dignity. (One website pointed out that, “In 2018, 275 high school boys ran the 400 meter faster than the lifetime best of Olympic Team USA member and world-record-holding sprinter Allyson Felix, while in 2017 thousands of men ran the 400 meter faster than any of the world’s three fastest women.”)

Your church building is used to host weddings on a regular basis. Under the Equality Act, you will not be allowed to say no to same-sex couples, even though this violates historic tenets of your faith.

Traditional Religious Practices: “As Unacceptable as was Jim Crow”

That’s why Mat Staver is almost shouting out this warning about the bill (emphasis his):

It even criminalizes those who share their own story of finding freedom in Christ from homosexuality in a book or speaking engagement. This bill literally sets the stage for banning the Bible, which offers the power to free those wanting to turn away from homosexual conduct.

And there is NO RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION to this bill!

Similarly, Chart and Menken warn, “Incredibly, the Equality Act specifically strips away protection of religious practice guaranteed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.” (Their emphasis.)

In short, “The Equality Act thus deems a religiously motivated refusal to participate in a same-sex marriage to be no different than a KKK member’s refusal to cater a multiethnic couple’s nuptials. Traditional religious practices, according to the Equality Act, are as unacceptable as was Jim Crow.”

And that is why people from a wide range of backgrounds are standing together against this ill-conceived bill. (I haven’t even mentioned the abortion-related aspects of the bill, among other important issues. See this relevant article from 2019.)

We Can All Stand Together on This. Here’s How

The U.S. House has passed the bill and it is now pending over at the U.S. Senate. Contact your senators at once, urging them to vote no. It’s one thing to stand against the mistreatment of those who identify as LGBTQ (or anything else). It’s another thing to turn the world upside down, throw out common sense and logic, and trash the religious liberties of the majority of the nation in the name of equality.

As expressed by the Catholic bishops, “Human dignity is central to what Catholics believe because every person is made in the image of God and should be treated accordingly, with respect and compassion. This commitment is reflected in the church’s charitable service to all people, without regard to race, religion or any other characteristic.”

Consequently, “It means we need to honor every person’s right to gainful employment free of unjust discrimination or harassment, and to the basic goods that they need to live and thrive. It also means that people of differing beliefs should be respected. In this, we wholeheartedly support nondiscrimination principles to ensure that everyone’s rights are protected.”

And that is precisely why we need our elected officials to vote against the Equality Act as it is currently written. We can all stand together on this.

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

Read more:

U.S. House Passes “In-Equality” Act

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Democrats have long pretended to be the party that fights to protect the little guy, all the while privately cozying up with Big Business, Big Tech, and Big Brother’s Press to oppress the little guys and gals.

Democrat policies decimated the black family and our big cities. Democrats wasted millions of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars and countless work hours on Russian collusion disinformation and impeachment ruses. And then in de facto collusion with social media mega-millionaires and the corrupt leftist press, the “progressive” Hive threw the election to befuddled Biden and his henchwoman.

But the worker bees shaped by the “progressive” Hive mind are not done yet.

In their official congressional roles, Representatives Anna G. Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, two hubristic California Democrats, sent jaw-dropping letters on February 22, 2021 to the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Hulu, Roku, Charter Communications (Spectrum), Dish Network, Cox Communications, and Altice USA to pressure them to stop carrying Newsmax, One America News Network (OANN), and Fox News.

In other words, tolerant, diversity-loving, free speech-devoted leftists seek to ban every outlet and platform for the dissemination of ideas they hate.

Here are the jaw-dropping questions, Eshoo and McNerney are “asking” every company to answer:

1. What moral or ethical principles (including those related to journalistic integrity, violence, medical information, and public health) do you apply in deciding which channels to carry or when to take adverse actions against a channel?

2. Do you require, through contracts or otherwise, that the channels you carry abide by any content guidelines? If so, please provide a copy of the guidelines.

3. How many of your subscribers viewed Fox News on YouTube TV for each of the four weeks preceding the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol? Please specify the number of subscribers that tuned in to each channel.

4. What steps did you take prior to, on, and following the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks to monitor, respond to, and reduce the spread of disinformation, including encouragement or incitement of violence by channels your company disseminates to millions of Americans? Please describe each step that you took and when it was taken.

5. Have you taken any adverse actions against a channel, including Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN, for using your platform to disseminate disinformation related directly or indirectly to the November 3, 2020 elections, the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection, or COVID-19 misinformation? If yes, please describe each action, when it was taken, and the parties involved.

6. Have you ever taken any actions against a channel for using your platform to disseminate any disinformation? If yes, please describe each action and when it was taken.

7. Are you planning to continue carrying Fox News on YouTube TV both now and beyond any contract renewal date? Are you planning to continue carrying Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN … both now and beyond any contract renewal date? If so, why?

Without a hint of irony, Eshoo and McNerney, card-carrying members of the Ministry of Truthiness, call conservative news sites sources of “disinformation.” No word about the misinformation and disinformation promulgated by Democrats in Congress and their propagandist minions in the press.

In this brave new dystopia being created by leftists, they have arrogated to themselves the “right” to decide what constitutes “misinformation” and “disinformation.” They have arrogated to themselves the “right” to decide what information, ideas, and beliefs make people “safe.” They have arrogated to themselves the “right” to define “safety.”

And, amazingly, from the crowd that rebukes “judgmentalism” and the notion of objective truth, leftists have arrogated to themselves the right to judge beliefs and then declare for the entire country which ones are true.

Once having declared which moral, ontological, and epistemological beliefs are true for all of America, the bees with their collective Hive mind buzzing, busy themselves with their stinging banning-business. And boy, does it hurt. I mean, girl sexually indeterminate human, does it hurt.

On no issue are the worker bees busier with their banning than on the “trans” issue. And since the minds of Big Business have been melded into the Hive mind, genuine “trans”-truth-tellers–i.e., people who tell the truth about “trans”-cultism–are being censored.

The work of two well-known “trans”- truth-tellers sparked controversial decisions among woke corporate behemoths recently. Those corporate decisions illuminate the dark cultural period the “trans” cult has ushered in, aided and abetted by the cowardice of those who know truth and the ignorance of those who should.

A few months ago, Target stopped selling an important book by Wall Street Journal reporter Abigail Shrier titled Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.

The well-researched and positively reviewed book offers a damning critique of “trans”-cultic beliefs, specifically how the “offensive” and “insipid” redefinition of “female” by the “trans” cult is damaging adolescent girls.

Target’s de facto book-banning resulted in fierce blowback, which caused Target to reverse its decision within days.

Fast-forward to Feb. 2021 when the news broke that Amazon had quietly stopped selling another important book critical of “trans”-cultism, this one by Ryan T. Anderson and titled When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment, which Amazon had been selling for three years.

Anderson, founding editor of Public Discourse and president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is a political philosopher with degrees from Princeton and Notre Dame. Like Schrier, he is also faultlessly civil and winsome. No forewarning to Anderson and no justification from Amazon representatives when queried about Amazon’s book ban.

Amazon has some peculiar and opaque standards for determining which books won’t be sold on its platform. Customers can buy Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kampf, all sorts of homosexual porn, and the book Let Harry Become Sally: Responding to the Anti-Transgender Moment.

Within days of Amazon’s de facto book-banning, Target decided the time was ripe to once again remove Schrier’s book from their rainbow-hued shelves. The sanctimonious, judgmental Target execs refuse to profit from a critique of the “trans” cult that is profiting so handsomely from the confusion, sterilization, and mutilation of children and teens. No siree, those Target execs have standards to uphold—standards that look like a canary-yellow stripe running down their spineless backs. After all, men in dresses can be very scary.

In a December 2020 article titled “Leftists See Orwell’s Novel 1984 As a Blueprint for Progress,” I wrote this:

One of the many remarkable aspects of this time in America is that all the forces of oppression about which George Orwell warned in his novel 1984 are present and growing, and many of the oppressors can’t see it. Ironically, many of the oppressors view themselves as paragons of virtue when, in reality, they’re paragons of virtue-signaling, which constitutes a performative cloak of invisibility that conceals their totalitarianism.

Apparently, leftists read both 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 as blueprints for “progress.”

Some doctrinaire libertarians argue that private businesses should be absolutely free to make any business decision they choose, including choosing to ban tweets, posts, social media platforms, news programs, or books. But such thinking is flawed in an age when the public square is the Internet and gargantuan communication and sales monopolies are controlled by the Hive.

If conservatives cannot disseminate ideas and cannot earn a living if they express ideas the Hive hates, then our first freedoms to speak and exercise our religion freely do not, in reality, exist.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/audioLeftist-Hive-Mind-Banning-Ideas.mp3

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  It makes a difference!

The Great Gelding of American men was a necessary precondition for “trans”-cultists to begin in earnest their effort to eradicate all public recognition of sex differences everywhere for everyone. This goal is within reach because of policies and laws already in place. The “Equality” Act will be the coup de grace. This effort could not be successful without the gelding of American men, because in previous generations, men would have protected women and children. But that was then and this is now.

The “Equality” Act has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives with three traitorous Republicans voting in favor of it. It now moves to the U.S. Senate. Let’s hope and pray there are enough wise and courageous men and women to stop it there.

I have said and written ad nauseum something that no one to my knowledge is discussing, which is that once discrimination based on both “sex” and “gender identity” is prohibited in places of public accommodation—as it is here in Illinois and will be everywhere if the “Equality” Act is signed into law—there exists no legal way to prohibit normal men—those the left refers to as “cisgender”—from accessing women’s private spaces, including women’s bathrooms and locker rooms.

Let’s say the University of Illinois permits Bob who pretends to be Mary unrestricted access to the women’s locker room. Then one day “cisgender” John who identifies as the sex he is requests unrestricted access to the women’s locker room. The university couldn’t deny John access based on his sex because 1. Discrimination based on sex is illegal, and 2. The university has already allowed biological male Bob access to the women’s locker room.

And the university couldn’t deny “cisgender” John access based on his “cisgender” identity because discrimination based on “gender identity” is illegal–or will be soon.

There you have it, friends. Most obstacles—including the un-manning of men—to the eradication of sex-segregation in private spaces have been removed. The rest of the obstacles are being carried away as we sit in our homes watching Netflix.

Feminists, lesbians, and Christian women are now banding together as co-belligerents to fight this unholy, anti-science movement, which is a good thing. But are men really going to leave this ugly battle to women to fight? Are there not enough un-gelded men remaining in America to lead this effort to protect their daughters, wives, mothers, sisters, and girlfriends? Are there not enough Congressmen who will not only vote against the “Equality” Act but also speak out against it publicly?

Thankfully, not all American men have been gelded. As we learned last week, U.S. Representative Gregory Steube, a Republican from Florida, boldly defended God’s created order on the House floor and warned of the consequences for rebellion against that order.

Immediately, the always foolish and arrogant U.S. Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY) leapt to his feet to express the impious, ignorant, and anti-American belief that Congress has no interest in God:

Mr. Steube, whatever any religious tradition ascribes as God’s will is no concern of this Congress.

Clearly, Nadler is correct. God’s will is of no concern to this Democrat-controlled Congress.

One wonders what Nadler would have said when in 1789, George Washington spoke these words to the first Congress at the first presidential inauguration:

[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States.

And what does Nadler in his infinite wisdom think of these words from George Washington in 1789:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be.

For those unfamiliar with Steube, he is an attorney who enlisted in the U.S. Army after 9/11 and “served with distinction from 2004 to 2008 as an Airborne Infantry Officer and a JAG Corps Officer.  Greg served as the Chief of Detainee Operations for Multinational Division North in Iraq with the 25th Infantry Division in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from 2006-2007.”

In addition to obliterating the right of free people to distinguish between men and women in bathrooms, locker rooms, and shelters, the “Equality” Act specifically addresses the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The “Equality” Act essentially says that the right of people of faith to exercise freely their beliefs on the nature and meaning of biological sex must be subordinated to the invented “right” of cross-dressing persons to access the private spaces of opposite-sex persons.

The leftist hive mind affirms the destruction of all public recognition of biological sex as well as the First Amendment. Resistance is futile—or so our buzzing Overlords think.

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

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Where-Are-Men-in-the-Fight-to-Protect-Women.mp3

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts! Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click here to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

On Thursday afternoon (2/25/2021), the U.S. House of Representatives voted 224 to 206 to pass the so-called “Equality Act” (H.R. 5), which would enshrine “sexual orientation” (i.e., homosexuality) and “gender identity” (i.e., cross-sex identification) as legally protected classes in a myriad of federal laws. The vote fell along party lines, with only three Republicans (U.S. Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, John Katko of New York, and Tom Reed of New York) voting with the Democratic majority, and two Republicans not voting.

Illinois’ congressional delegation voted as expected. Republicans Mike Bost, Rodney Davis, Adam Kinzinger, Daren LaHood, and Mary Miller voted against H.R. 5.

Democrats Cheri Bustos, Sean Casten, Danny Davis, Bill Foster, Chuy Garcia, Robin Kelly, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Marie Newman, Mike Quigley, Bobby Rush, Jan Schakowsky, Brad Schneider, and Lauren Underwood voted in favor of H.R. 5.

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

To be clear, H.R. 5 would remove significant rights and opportunities from many in our communities:

• People of faith who live and work consistently with their religious beliefs on marriage and human sexuality would be harmed. This includes medical professionals forced to participate in “gender transition” efforts, counselors banned from helping their clients, and religious employers (like Christian schools) forced to hire those who do not share their mission. The bill specifically takes away the religious protections we currently have under federal law.

• Women and girls would be forced to compete in athletics on an unfair playing field with biological males.

• School children and adults would have their privacy rights infringed upon by allowing sex-specific facilities (locker rooms, showers, bathrooms) to be used by the opposite biological sex.

• Women’s shelters would be forced to admit biological men.

• Adoption agencies and other non-profit charities would be subjected to government shutdown and discrimination lawsuits for continuing to follow their mission.

• Free speech would be censored by compelling policies for preferred pronoun use.

We believe every human being is created in the image and likeness of Almighty God, and therefore deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Using the heavy hand of government, however, to force good people to deny biological realities and to compromise their religious convictions is not the answer.

Speak up now before it is too late.

To understand more about the widespread harms the passage of H.R. 5 would have on our nation, see IFI recent Action Alert and the host of helpful resources from our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom.

Read more:

U.S. House passes pro-abortion ‘Equality Act’ to write transgenderism into civil rights law (LifeSiteNews.com)

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts! Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click here to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

Written by Jorge Gomez

If you love to discuss (and to defend) the U.S. Constitution, it’s not uncommon to find yourself in a conversation or debate with others who claim that our nation’s founding charter of government is a “secular” document.

While it’s true that America’s government is not a theocracy, it’s historically inaccurate and inconsistent to argue that the Founders never intended government and religion to mix.

God or Government: Who Grants Our Rights?

As America’s Founders intended, the Constitution is not a secular document. To claim that it is secular is to ignore centuries of historical evidence and would require the denial of one of the most quintessential ideas that have made the Constitution so exceptional and enduring: That our rights and freedoms come from God, not government.

Nowhere is this better explained than in the Declaration of Independence (1776), as Thomas Jefferson eloquently phrased it:

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

A precursor to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence was the building block for the Constitution’s ratification only a couple decades later—including the urgent demand to create a Bill of Rights listing the rights given to people by their Creator that government could not infringe upon. The God-given rights acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence would be protected by the Constitution in our society and political system.

Underpinning the Constitution is a transcendent idea of a divine grantor of rights, beyond the power of government and of man—which means it cannot be considered wholly secular.

History and Tradition: Religious Expression Common in American Governance 

If America’s Constitution is secular…why are religious traditions and expressions of faith so common and abundant, including in our nation’s governmental institutions?

From America’s inception to present, faith constantly appears in all forms and sectors of our public institutions: George Washington petitioned the Continental Congress to establish (and use government money to pay) the US Army Chaplain Corps, opening every session of Congress since 1789 with an invocation, having daily prayers aboard U.S. Navy vessels, displaying the face of Moses and the Ten Commandments inside the U.S. Supreme Court, or adopting “In God We Trust” as our national motto and minting it on our currency.

Under a full-blown, secular constitution, it would be nearly impossible to accommodate and tolerate these forms of religious expression on government property or by government officials.

Again, we must emphasize that the Founders considered the free exercise of religion to be a positive force, necessary the flourishing of the republic. It was not their intent to use the Constitution to erase religion from the public square.

Learning from Example: The Soviet Union and Cuba’s Secular Constitutions

What does it mean to have a “secular” constitution? Let’s consider the example of two countries.

Article 52 of the now-defunct Soviet Union’s (USSR) constitution strictly and rigidly separated church from state, making its secular nature clear:

“In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.”

(Important note: The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the text of the American Constitution).

Not too far from America’s shores, the Cuban Constitution clearly declares the country is a secular state, provides for the separation of religious institutions and the state, and explicitly places the Communist Party above religious freedom as “the superior leading force of the society and the State.”

Why the urgent need to cement in writing the complete separation of government from religion?

Because in communist and totalitarian regimes the state must be supreme, above houses of worship, social institutions and above the natural rights of the individual. What’s more, knowing that religious communities have successfully led millions of people to speak up and stand against abuses of power, a secular constitution is necessary in order to crush any opposition of the state.

In the case of the former USSR, historians have extensively documented that from its very start, “Soviet Communism devastated religious life in the USSR. The Bolsheviks destroyed religious institutions, nationalized religious property, uprooted religious communities, and confined religious life.”

Proponents of making America’s Constitution wholly secular would be well served by remembering an old adage from Winston Churchill: “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Today, we’d be wise to heed Churchill’s advice. To learn not only from our own history, but from the history of other nations, that secularizing the Constitution could lead down a dangerous path and possibly the destruction of our beautiful and truly exceptional Republic.

Read more:

This article was originally published at FirstLiberty.org.

Written by Kelle Berry

Recently, an activist group known as the Secular Democrats of America (SDA) sent a document to the president and the administration with a directive “to take back the mantle of religious freedom and pluralism.”

On the surface, the title—Restoring Constitutional Secularism and Patriotic Pluralism in the White House—makes the SDA’s mission sound appealing. The document calls to:

“…Oppose discrimination against atheists, agnostics, humanists, seekers, religious and nonreligious persons and to champion the value of freedom of thought and conscience…”

This even makes it sound harmonious with First Liberty’s own mission of protecting religious freedom for all Americans. After all, the First Amendment grants everyone the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, convictions and to act according to their conscience without government censorship, threat, or coercion.

However, scratching beneath the surface, one sees that the SDA’s demands are much more dangerous. Inside the document, one finds a detailed “blueprint” redefining religious freedom in a way that would be unrecognizable to America’s Founders.

Building a Higher Wall of Separation?

Invoking America’s third president, the SDA implores a return to a “Jeffersonian approach to governance.” In other words, the SDA is petitioning to fortify a higher “wall of separation” between church and state.

Many high school civics students are undoubtedly familiar with those words from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. But what may not be known is that Jefferson wrote them to reassure the church that the First Amendment ensured the government would not interfere in their religious activities. At no time did Jefferson believe that religion and government could not mix.

Indeed, one need look no further than Jefferson’s attendance at church services held inside the U.S. Capitol itself as evidence of his approval of strong church-state relations.

Jefferson and a vast majority of our nation’s Founders understood that faith is not only permissible in the public square, but also beneficial. Houses of worship and religious organizations all faiths care for the sick, feed the hungry, and shelter the homeless. And the benefits don’t stop with charity. A recent study reports that religion contributes $1.2 trillion to the U.S. economy.

In stark contrast to the Founders’ constitutional intent, the SDA commands employees “to separate their personal religious beliefs from their work.” Sadly, some government officials have completely bought into this unconstitutional view.

First Liberty continues to protect Coach Joe Kennedy’s right as a high school football coach to pray alone after games. If the SDA gets its way, Coach Kennedy and millions of other Americans who are government employees will suffer irreparable harm to their First Amendment rights—putting them in the untenable position of choosing between their faith and their job.

Government employees are not the only ones who will suffer under the SDA’s aggressive plan.

Private religious organizations who have historically been able to work with the government are also threatened. In the case of Fulton v. City of Pennsylvania, currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, Catholic adoption agencies that have, for decades, worked with the government to provide loving homes for adoptive children have been told to sacrifice their religious identity in order to continue their work.

Unsurprisingly, the SDA opposes the right of the adoption agencies: “[n]o institution, religious or secular, is entitled to access taxpayer funding.” If the SDA gets its way, it won’t just be orphans in need of loving homes who suffer. Millions of Americans who benefit from the benevolent partnership between church and state will also suffer.

Legislation Already Under Way

It’s tempting to quickly dismiss the SDA’s demands. However, people of faith must realize that some in positions of power who sympathize with the SDA’s message are already acting to implement its agenda.

For example, look at the effort on Capitol Hill to pass the so-called Equality Act, which if signed into law, would effectively overturn the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which, as its name suggests, was intended to restore religious freedom.

The Equality Act may sound appealing in name, but the only equality it seeks to achieve is to eradicate any religious beliefs that do not conform to the government’s preferred orthodoxy. It’s a law that would squash dissent and differing viewpoints from the public sphere. The sad irony is that the Equality Act is actually antithetical to the SDA’s stated principles and its championing of pluralism.

At a time when the SDA and many other activist groups are pushing to recreate the U.S. Constitution, First Liberty remains vigilant and undeterred in our mission to protect and defend religious freedom consistent with the vision of America’s Founders. And regardless of who resides in the White House or controls the U.S. Congress, we will continue being the best hope for victory for Americans of all faiths.

This article was originally published at FirstLiberty.org.