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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But of course!

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

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

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

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

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

These are debates we can (and should) have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally posted at Townhall.com.

The three cases dealt with quite different issues.

In National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Becerra, a 5-4 majority of the court overturned a California statute that required anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to inform clients where they could obtain free or inexpensive abortions — something the centers regard as homicide.

The same 5-4 majority in a second case, Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, reversed a 41-year-old precedent and ruled that public employees don’t have to pay unions fees that cover the cost of collective bargaining. Echoing a position taken by then-President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s, the court reasoned that collective bargaining with a public employer is inevitably a political matter, and that forcing employees to finance it is compelling them to subsidize political speech with which they disagree.

In the third case, Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court avoided a direct decision on whether a baker, whose Christian belief opposed same-sex marriage, could refuse to design a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple, contrary to a state law that bars discrimination against gays. Seven justices ruled that the commission showed an impermissible animus against religion, but the four liberal justices endorsed a separate opinion indicating they’d rule against the baker otherwise.

Rational arguments can now be made for the dissenters’ positions. In Becerra, they argued that the law simply prevented misleading advertising; in Janus, they argued that union members should pay for services rendered; in Masterpiece Cakeshop, they argued that selling a cake is a routine service, not a form of expression. You may not agree, but you can see why others might make these arguments.

But are they “liberal”? That word comes from a Latin root that means “free.”

And “free” is the keyword in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which bars Congress from passing laws “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion or “abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.”

The Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence got its start almost exactly 100 years ago, in cases challenging laws passed by a Democratic Congress and endorsed by a Democratic administration, prohibiting opposition to the government and, specifically, American participation in World War I.

The justices hesitated to block such prosecutions, but those considered “liberal” — Republican appointee Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Democratic appointee Justice Louis Brandeis — were most likely to look askance. The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 to defend the free speech rights of everyone, even vile extremists.

Unhappily, the ACLU today subordinates free speech to other values, like defending the sensibilities of certain students on campuses. And other liberals have been moving in the same direction. It’s less important for them that people say what they think and more important that they say what the government requires.

In his Bagehot blog, the Economist’s Adrian Wooldridge describes the process. Historically, he says, liberals understood that conflict was inevitable and tried to foster freedom based on their distrust of power, faith in progress and belief in civic respect. But today, Wooldridge writes, “liberalism as a philosophy has been captured by a technocratic-managerial-cosmopolitan elite.” They have moved from making “a critique of the existing power structure” to becoming “one of the most powerful elites in history.” In response, we see “a revolt of the provinces against the city”: Brexit, Donald Trump. In counter-response, as Niall Ferguson puts it in a column for The Times of London, “‘liberals’ are increasingly authoritarian.”

Like the “liberal” Supreme Court justices, who don’t see a constitutional problem with compelling crisis pregnancy centers to send messages they find repugnant, or requiring union members to subsidize political speech they disagree with, or forcing people to participate in ceremonies prohibited by their religion.

In the process, they are providing support for Friedrich Hayek‘s argument in “The Road to Serfdom” that moving toward socialism means moving toward authoritarianism. And they seem to not have noticed Yale Law Professor Stephen Carter‘s observation, as quoted in The Atlantic, that “every law is violent” because “Behind every exercise of law stands the sheriff.”

Carter calls for “a degree of humility” in passing and enforcing laws that compel speech against conscience — something today’s “liberals” seem to have forgotten.

Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.

This article originally posted at Creators.com

It’s true that socialist Bernie Sanders is anything but a millennial. And it’s true that socialism was popular long before any millennials were born. But there’s no doubt that socialism is becoming increasingly popular among young people today. Why?

According to the Daily Caller, “Young people view socialism as more attractive than older people. Of people ages 18-29, 55 percent considered socialism favorably compared to other age groups, according to a 2016 Gallup poll. Only 37 percent of people between the ages 30 and 49 viewed socialism as positive. 27% percent of people between 50 and 64 years old thought of socialism positively.”

So, millennials, especially younger millennials, have a very favorable view of socialism. But do they – or most of us – even know what it is?

Prof. Jay Richards offers this helpful primer:

“Marx and his disciples claimed that ‘capitalism’ must give way to ‘socialism,’ where private property would be abolished and an all-powerful state would own everything on behalf of the people. That’s what Marx meant by the word socialism, and that’s the main dictionary definition.

“This was only supposed to be a stage, though, not the end of all our strivings. At some point, under socialism, people would lose their silly fondness for property, family, religion, and other evils. A ‘new socialist man’ would emerge and then the state would ‘wither away.’ Everyone would enjoy peace, prosperity, and the brotherhood of man. Marx and his acolytes called that final, stateless paradise ‘communism.’”

And how has that vision worked itself out in history?

Prof. Richards states: “Here’s the point: Those regimes led by mass murderers with their gulags, death camps, man-made famines and killing fields were socialist. That’s not slander. It’s what these countries called themselves. USSR stood for the ‘Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.’

“You gotta break millions of eggs with socialism to make the communist omelet. Socialism, you might say, was the necessary evil to reach the bliss where no state would be necessary.”

Yet the lure of socialism continues, getting stronger in the last few years, especially among American youth. Why?

Here are three simple reasons.

1) Young people want “equality.” The word “equality” has become almost sacred to the younger generation, and in many ways, that’s a good thing. They want a level playing field. They want everyone treated fairly. They want to leave behind our discriminatory, racist past. All that is positive.

Unfortunately, there is often a passion for equality that is not based on realism (or function, as in all the talk about “marriage equality,” where sex differences are blurred).

The fact is that life is not always fair. There are winners and losers. And some people work harder than others, because of which they succeed more.

That success is well-deserved and should be appreciated. But all too often today, success through hard work is scorned.

Question: “Why should you have more than I do?”

Answer: “Because I worked hard for it.”

Response: “But that’s not fair.”

Socialism, then, is the fix!

2) Young people today have a deep sense of entitlement. Conservapedia.com defines the entitlement mentality as “a state of mind in which an individual comes to believe that privileges are instead rights, and that they are to be expected as a matter of course.”

I am owed a free lunch, and it’s got to be a good lunch too. The lunch of my choosing. I deserve it.

As explained by Dr. John Townsend in his book The Entitlement Cure, “Entitlement is the belief that I am exempt from responsibility and I am owed special treatment. Entitlement is: the man who thinks he is above all the rules. The woman who feels mistreated and needs others to make it up to her.”

This dangerous attitude is crippling a whole generation. As expressed by Kate S. Rourke in her article, “You Owe Me: Examining a Generation of Entitlement,” “Children in the most recent generation of adults born between 1982 and 1995, known as ‘Generation Y,’ were raised to believe that it is their right to have everything given to them more than any other previous generation.”

Socialism plays right into this mindset, especially the fuzzy, idealized, quite-unrealistic socialism being put forward today: “We all get our free lunch!”

Unfortunately, that can only happen when the government owns all the lunches. Do young people understand this?

3) Young socialists haven’t done the math. The obvious question is this: “If you’re getting a free lunch – no, if we’re all getting a free lunch – who’s paying for it?”

The immediate, thoughtless answer is: “The government!”

And that leads to the real question: “Who’s paying the government?”

The answer is as painful as it is obvious: “You are!”

As one news commentator suggested, there’s no reason to wait for the government to become socialist. Just start paying more taxes today and do your part. Right!

Do you remember the viral video clip where a young Florida woman, Peggy Joseph, was ecstatic after hearing candidate Barack Obama speak in 2008? She said, “I won’t have to worry about puttin’ gas in my car, I won’t have to worry about payin’ my mortgage.” Obama will take care of it!

Six years later, working as a nurse and the suburban mom of four kids, she was asked by filmmaker Joel Gilbert, “Did Obama pay for your mortgage and did he pay for your gas?”

She laughed and replied, “Absolutely not! Mortgage got worse and gas prices got higher… At that time we needed a change but a change for the better not the worse.”

When I asked my assistant Dylan, himself in his early 30’s and the married father of four, why he thought so many young people were into socialism, he answered, “Perhaps because of being so absorbed with social media that they’re used to soundbite answers and haven’t thought it through.”

Or, as Jay Richards stated, “Too many of us are still clueless about socialism and communism. I blame biased media and fuzzy thinking.”

The bottom line is that most young proponents of socialism simply haven’t done the math. Had they done so, they’d start working the capitalist system a little harder. They would find it far more rewarding than socialism.

This article originally posted at AFA.net.

When you look at the history of Christianity in the West, it is largely defined (despite popular anti-Christian myth to the contrary) by Christians promoting social justice and charity for the poor and underprivileged. No other social group has been responsible for more positive social reform and improvements for the underprivileged, sick and downtrodden than Christians.

In early 19^th century, William Wilberforce, a Bible-believing Christian, campaigned his entire political career in the British Parliament for the abolition of slavery. Christian groups have founded scores of hospitals and medical clinics. According to the Catholic News Service, over 117,000 Catholic health care facilities exist around the world today, including hospitals, clinics and orphanages.

The abolitionist movement and the underground railroad were largely Christian movements. Quakers, Anabaptists and many ministers called for abolition and helped protect slaves as they made their way to Canada.

Christianity Supports the Common Good

Researchers who study philanthropy tell us: “Per capita, Americans voluntarily donate about seven times as much as continental Europeans. Even our cousins the Canadians give to charity at substantially lower rates, and at half the total volume of an American household. There are many reasons for this American distinction. Foremost is the fact that ours is the most religious nation in the industrial world. Religion motivates giving more than any other factor.”[i]

Consider the amazing history of the humanitarian “Salvation Army” around the world since 1865. They have reached millions and millions with practical help and the message of the Gospel. Their mission statement is: “The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church. Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.” With a “heart to God, and a hand to man,” they model what true Christians have always sought to do throughout all time: Preach the Gospel and demonstrate God’s love to others.

One of the most revered Reformed American preachers of all time, Jonathan Edwards (a staunch theological conservative), advocated for radical, “liberal” generosity:

“It is the duty of the people of God to give bountifully for the aforesaid purpose. It is commanded once and again in the text, ‘Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy poor brother.’ Merely to give something is not sufficient. It answers not the rule, nor comes up to the holy command of God. But we must open our hand wide. What we give, considering our neighbor’s (needs), and our ability, should be such as may be called a liberal gift.”[ii]

What is Social Justice Theology?

With this background, it may surprise some when some Evangelicals refuse to support a popular fad within liberal church circles called, “Social Justice Theology.”

As with most things, it’s unfair to say that a complex ideology can be described in one mere sound-bite. However, in a nutshell, the primary objection that conservative Christians have with Social Justice Warriors (SJW) is their insistence that we should help people…with other people’s money! This is where the new postmodern, liberal version of Christianity parts from the historic Christian faith and practice.

Jesus taught his disciples to give generously, of their OWN money to the poor. SJW’s look to the civil government as the great savior of society. They advocate for socialistic programs that promote a forced redistribution of wealth through mandatory taxation and government-controlled welfare programs. It’s quite easy to be generous with money taken by force from others. The problem is, that isn’t truly loving.

Socialism is Not Love or Justice

Former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, once famously quipped:

“Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means. They’re progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people.”[iii]

In the end, Socialism always results in people losing their freedoms, as the government increasingly takes control of the mean of production and distribution. Ronald Reagan once said (speaking of the hip new packaging of Socialism as a social kindness), “Under the tousled boyish haircut is still old Karl Marx — first launched a century ago. There is nothing new in the idea of a Government being Big Brother to us all. Hitler called his ‘State Socialism’ and way before him it was ‘benevolent monarchy.’”[iv]

If you want to know where this “benevolence” leads, it ends up with all citizens (except those in elite political — and corrupt economic — power), losing their liberty. History has played that story out again and again.

As true Conservatives, our desire is to see true justice and true charity. Neither of these thrive when people have their liberties decreased through an ever-expanding government monopoly. Nor does it thrive through the financial plundering (and soon disappearance) of the working middle class (because of excessive taxation for government welfare programs).

As Christians, we are for the Biblical and historic Christian church’s version of social justice (where people demonstrate kindness from uncoerced hearts). We are not for the new Neo-Marxist version of force and political aggression. The new Social Justice is simply Socialism, disguised under a thin “Christian” veneer. Advocates of true social justice will want nothing to do with it.

(For more study on this topic, I will refer you to the excellent essay, “Rendering Unto Caesar: Was Jesus A Socialist?” by Lawrence W. Reed.)

[i] https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/who-gives

[ii] http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/charity.htm

[iii] https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/102953

[iv] The New York Times (27 October 1984)

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

How would you define tolerance? The essence of the standard societal and dictionary definitions boils down to this – tolerance is the ability or willingness to live among and get along with people whose opinions and behavior are different, even antithetical, to one’s own.

It is interesting to note that Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “tolerance” as: The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.

Dave Rubin, host of The Rubin Report, states, “Whatever differences we have, tolerating others’ opinions is a prerequisite of a functioning and free society.” If what he says is true, is it any wonder that there is so much dysfunction in our country? Listen, as Rubin, a self-identified liberal, shares his perspective on the state of tolerance today within the mainstream media, the Left, and the Right, and asks the question “Who is tolerant?” His answer might surprise you.

An article in the May, 2018 issue of the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society titled “Rational Suicide in Elderly Adults: A Clinician’s Perspective”  by Meera Balasubramaniam, MD, MPH  recently appeared in both medical and nursing news sources.

Dr. Balasubramaniam begins with a case study of  “Mr. A” who at age 72 is considered a “baby boomer”, along with a whole section on the “baby boomer” generation-those born between 1946 and 1964 (ages 54-72).

Mr. A was a retired widower who had recently undergone successful cancer surgery and used a walker. He had no terminal illness but  he told a nurse that he always entertained the idea of ending his life “while I’m still doing well” and that if his health showed signs of failing or became too arduous, he would consider suicide. He stated “I’ve lived a good life. I’ll see how it goes, but it’s better to die well in my early 70s than have a life in which I have to be anxious before every doctor’s visit or have repeated surgery or end up in a nursing home.” (Emphasis added) A psychiatric consult showed no mental health problem.

Dr. Balasubramaniam says she wrote this article to “explore whether ethical arguments in favor of physician–assisted suicide apply to elderly adults who are tired of living but are not terminally ill”. (Emphasis added)

While claiming to not take a view on “whether suicide in non–terminally ill elderly adults can be rational,”  Dr. Balasubramaniam states that “It is important to consider the possibility that the combination of negative perceptions toward aging and dependency, greater social isolation, increasing access to drugs, greater need for autonomy, and an overall generational familiarity with suicide may be accounting for a higher proportion of older adults like Mr. A expressing the wish to end their lives on their own terms”. (Emphasis added)

It may seem incredible to even consider “tired of life” and older age as a “rational” reason for medically assisted suicide. However, Holland and Switzerland already allow it and the article itself cites the UK group “My Death My Decision” (formerly SOARS, The Society for Old Age Rational Suicide) that supports the idea that mentally competent older adults should have the right to assisted suicide rather than face an uncertain life that may be “fraught with frailty and dependence”.

As a Baby Boomer myself, we baby boomers were among the first teenagers exposed to a growing societal acceptance of new concepts like divorce , “free love” with the help of the birth control pill and legalized abortion, the “population bomb” predicting global cataclysm if people didn’t stop reproducing, the use of illegal drugs like marijuana and LSD for recreation, the rejection of religious principles and the slogan “don’t trust anyone over 30”.

So perhaps it should not be puzzling that people over 55 comprised the majority of people dying by physician-assisted suicide in the latest Oregon report since we saw so many of the traditional civil and moral moorings in society pulling loose when we were at an especially vulnerable age.

As one sage said, “Old age ain’t for sissies!” But, of course, this is not a “rational” excuse for legalizing assisted suicide for anyone-of any age.

Still, our older citizens are an especially high risk group for elder abuse, household accidents, money scams, social isolation, age-related medical bias and poor or even dangerous nursing home care.

Having friends, family and a meaningful purpose in life becomes harder when older people see their loved ones die or move far away and physical or mental limitations develop in themselves. Many older people fear losing their independence as well as being a “burden” on others.

Medically assisted suicide is not the answer but what else can we do to help?

We can start with our own family members, friends and neighbors. Like all of us, older people need to feel loved and appreciated. Look for ways to assist an older person that he or she might not have considered or be too embarrassed to ask about.

When I was a young wife and mother, our church parish started a Good Samaritan program to identify and help people with special needs of any age. It was a great success and our parish became more inclusive and accessible to everyone, especially the elderly. That was a benefit to all of us.

Other programs such as visiting one person for one hour each week in a local nursing home have helped some parishes to combat the sad reality I have seen that few people in nursing get  visitors, especially people with dementia.

Many of us naturally feel uncomfortable about going to nursing homes, but such places are usually thrilled to have volunteers and most have training programs.

Personally, my first volunteer activity was as a young teenager in a nursing home and it changed my perception of “old people” and life itself. I was amazed by the wisdom and stories the residents told as well as how much they appreciated anything I did. It was a great experience for a shy, gawky teen like myself.

Many years later, I took my young children to visit their grandmother in a nursing home after telling them what to expect in terms of sights, smells and sounds. Afterwards, my youngest daughter asked why everyone wanted to touch her leg while I held her. When I explained that the residents rarely saw a 2 year old and were so glad to see her, she grinned and said “OK!”.  She understood even at that young age.

In a society that seems to constantly celebrate youth and health, we need to make sure that our elderly also feel valued and supported.

And we might just save a life!

This article originally posted at NancyValko.com

Looking at the current political and cultural climate in Washington, D.C., you might get the idea that the ruling class is in the midst of a conniption.  Even the walls of the National Cathedral are vibrating with weirdness – more about that later.

In “Summer of Our Discontent,” Washington Post staff writer Dan Zak lays out the mood gripping Washington, D.C., or, as the headline in last Tuesday’s Style section describes it, “the capital of the resistance.”  Here’s the third paragraph:

“Here we all are. The start of a mad hot American summer in the nation’s capital. A president violating norm after norm. Immigrant children wailing for their mothers. A Supreme Court seat, open like a wound. A midterm election hurtling toward us like an avenging angel, or a killer asteroid. The resistance girding for war, or curdling into hysteria, depending on your view.”

Let’s opt for hysteria.   This is the shark fin of a Deep State that is determined to bring down the Trump administration by whatever means necessary.

“It’s reached a point of desperation,” explains Amanda Werner, described by Mr. Zak as a campaign strategist. “We’ve been civil (did she say this with a straight face?) and having endless debates, and all we’ve seen is the decimation of everything we care about.”

Two weeks ago, Ms. Werner and a dozen others invaded a D.C. restaurant to heckle Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and also came to her residence to scream, “We’re here to wake up your neighborhood.”  Last Sunday, the D.C. chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America chanted slogans outside the Alexandria home of just-retired Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau Director Thomas Homan, accusing him of “fascism” (a socialist variant, but perhaps they don’t know that).  On June 22, the owner of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia kicked out White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and then led a crowd to heckle her party at another eatery.

“I think now is the time to start seeking them out and invading their spaces,” Ms. Werner told the Post.

So, what are we in for now?

Anthony Oiveira has some ideas.  The University of Toronto instructor wrote a column for the Post on Friday titled, “Welcome to LGBTQ Wrath Month.”  Not enough fealty was paid to LGBTQ demands during Pride Month in June, so he calls for something stronger: “Stonewall. The White Night. Riots. ACT UP. Wrath Month is a chance to remember that before our symbol was a rainbow, it was a hurled brick. Civility be damned….”

And it will be, if Rep. Maxine Waters has her way.  The Democrat from Los Angles has called for more crowds to harass Mr. Trump’s cabinet.

Here’s the amazing part.   After her party’s congressional leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, declined to endorse Ms. Waters’s mob warfare scheme, nearly 200 “Black women” and other Progressives for whom Ms. Waters “is our shero [sic],” signed a letter demanding that the top Democrats apologize.

The signers were torqued that Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer called the rent-a-mob tactics “unacceptable” and “not American,” and accused the Democratic leaders of — what else — racial insensitivity.  As a practical matter, this gives a free pass to Ms. Waters to say and do anything, no matter how offensive or bizarre.

Staring into the abyss of the upset election on June 26 in New York in which a socialist Millennial unseated Democratic House Caucus Chair Joe Crowley, a 10-term congressman, Pelosi promptly issued a statement blaming President Trump for the attacks on his staff and hailing Waters as a “valued leader.”

Moving on to the world of religion, the Post reports that the Episcopal Church USA has begun debating how to further edit the once-incomparable Book of Common Prayer that they “improved” in 1979.

Ms. Kelly Brown Douglas, the canon theologian at the Washington National Cathedral, wants to cleanse the book of masculine references.  Instead of “Lord,” which implies maleness, she wants to use “Creator, Liberator, Sustainer.”

The language will reflect “the God that I can see in the least of these.  The God that I can see in the face of a Renisha McBride or a Trayvon Martin – that tells me something about God.”

Another theologian on the language committee, Brite Divinity School Professor Wil Gafney, says she already routinely ditches “King” for “Ruler” or “Creator” and sometimes uses “she” to refer to God.

Others propose language about conserving the Earth, blessing a transgender person’s adoption of a new name and performing a same-sex “wedding.” So far, no one reportedly has offered up a prayer to bless having an abortion.  But wait for it.

Ms. Gafney did draw the line at altering Jesus’s opening to the Lord’s Prayer, which he gave his apostles in Matthew 6: 9.

“’Our Father,’ I won’t fiddle with that,” she told the Post.

What refreshing humility.   If only the rest of the Resistance could learn to be so humble.

This article originally posted at Townhall.com

Race-based hostility has intensified over the past ten years, hostility that is exacerbated by political policies that harm the black community, political rhetoric that seeks to maintain racial division, and government schools that embrace and promote Critical Race Theory. Over the weekend, racial hostility popped up in a most unlikely place: the comments section of Illinois Family Institute’s Facebook page under a short article about a homosexuality-celebrating float in an Independence Day parade and a tranny-training camp for children called “Camp Drag” being held this summer at the Ames, Iowa public library.

Here are the comments left by “Trevor Thompson” followed by my responses:

“Trevor Thompson”: White men have promoted sexuality since the beginning of time. Especially the Greeks. Y’all raped and sodimized [sic] black slaves. Now y’all complaining.

Higgins: Who is “y’all”? Surely, you’re not suggesting that all white men (or only white men) commenting on this thread are responsible for the homosexuality that corrupts our parades, poisons childhood in America, and harms individuals and the public good.

And surely, you’re not suggesting that all white men commenting on this thread have raped and sodomized black slaves. So, are you suggesting that all white men are culpable for the egregious acts of white men during slavery? If so, is such an accusation just?

“Trevor Thompson”: I’m “generalizing” just you folks call people of color illegal immigrants. BTW if the shoe fit…wear it.

Higgins: Yeah, as a colorless woman who has never owned slaves, raped women, sodomized men, or thought that colorful people were of lesser value than colorless people, the shoe definitely does not fit.

Who calls people illegal immigrants simply because they’re “of color”? Many people call illegal immigrants “illegal immigrants,” but I don’t know anyone who calls all people of color illegal immigrants. There are countless people of color who are not immigrants or are legal immigrants, and even colorless people can be illegal immigrants.

You claimed that all white men are guilty of raping and sodomizing slaves. Well, men of all colors have raped, sodomized, dehumanized, brutalized, and sold women and girls throughout history. Since you’re a man, are you culpable for all the crimes committed by all men against women and girls throughout history? Would it be helpful, accurate, wise, or just for me to “generalize” and say to you, “You have raped, sodomized, dehumanized, brutalized, and sold women and girls throughout history”?

If you think it’s justifiable to say to white men that “y’all raped and sodomized black slaves,” we’ll never make any headway in erasing the racial divide.

“Trevor Thompson”: I’m a black man. That Jesus ain’t done nothing for me or my people. Gtfoh!!!

[For those unfamiliar with texting argot, GTFOH, which stands for “get the f*** out of here,” is an expression of disbelief.]

Higgins: I think you may misunderstand who is responsible for the pernicious evil visited upon blacks during slavery and after. It wasn’t Jesus who caused that evil. It was fallen humans.

And I think you may misunderstand what Jesus came to accomplish. He didn’t come to free humans from temporal suffering. Rather, Jesus came to freely die a grotesque, barbaric death to spare humans from eternal suffering by bearing the penalty for our sins.

That said, God does alleviate all manner of suffering from illnesses, accidents, and injustice. It happens every day, all around us. The fact that you are not enslaved today is testament to God’s goodness.

But this world will continue to suffer until Christ’s return. At that point all of us will be judged once and for all for our sins. And those white people throughout history who killed, enslaved, brutalized, and treated with contempt those whom they viewed as inferior will receive the just judgment of God. So, too will the people of color–including blacks–who have killed, enslaved, brutalized and treated with contempt other fellow humans.  Whites do not have a monopoly on the sin of slavery, racial prejudice, or the brutalization of others.

Matters related to race are complicated and emotionally fraught. The incomprehensible institution of slavery and its evil aftermath continue to wreak pain and havoc. The effects lurch on, down dark, twisting, thorn-encrusted paths gouging barely healed skin. Small or gaping wounds bleed.

Words can be thorns that gouge and wound or a balm that soothes and heals. And there is another path, straight but narrow, that will lead to perfect healing.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Erasing-the-Racial-Divide-2.mp3

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you. Donate now

-and, please-

If you are concerned about raising children or grandchildren in this high tech age in which screen time is a whole new phenomenon, then you’re not alone.  A poll from Gallup finds that screens are a significant concern of parents.  Here are some of the polling firm’s findings from a poll of 1,271 U.S. parents of children from birth to age 10.

• Two-thirds of parents worry — either a little (53%) or a lot (12%) — that their child spends too much time on electronic devices.

• More than four in 10 parents (43%) say they worry that their child has trouble keeping themselves entertained without electronic devices.

• Parents of boys (70%) worry a bit more than parents of girls (63%) that their child spends too much time using electronic devices.

• Boys’ parents (45%) also worry more than girls’ parents (39%) that their child cannot occupy themselves without an electronic device.

• About a third of parents whose children engage in three or more hours of screen time per weekday worry that their child is not keeping up academically (36%) or has trouble getting along with other children (34%).

• In contrast, only 26% of parents whose children engage in less screen time worry about their academics, and 20% worry about their socialization.

• Parents of children who spend three or more hours on screen-based play per weekday are less satisfied with their child’s development in teamwork, discipline and social skills when compared with parents of children who engage in less screen-based play.

Read more: Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation? (The Atlantic)

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

Recently I read the above verse in Philippians and it made me stop. At first glance, it appears redundant. Why does Paul use four words (learned, received, heard, and seen) when he could have just said “learned”? After all, wasn’t that the point? He’s basically telling them, “Do the things you’ve learned.”

But then it struck me: Paul is outlining—in reverse order—the entire discipleship model.

As a father, this is a model I need to understand and implement with my children. After all, I’m called to train and nurture them in the ways of the Lord. If any relationship in the world needs an effective model of discipleship, it’s a father with his children.

Let me say at the outset that I haven’t mastered this. In fact, I’ve got a long way to go. But this is the model I want to follow.

One interesting thing about this model is that it places responsibility on both the mentor and mentee—it’s not just a top-down model.

Let’s take a closer look at each element.

As I mentioned, Paul is essentially listing the elements of discipleship in reverse order. I’ll turn the order back around and we’ll see the logical progression.

Seen in me: Paul tells the Philippian church that they’ve seen certain things in him that they should implement in their own lives. In other words, there was modeling taking place. Paul was a living example of the very things the Philippian Christians needed to do.

This, of course, is fundamental. As a Dad, I need to be constantly aware of the fact that my children need to see me doing what’s right. They need to observe me living a life of integrity, faithfulness, purity, and submission to God. They need to see me giving to others, exercising kindness, and doing what’s right even when it’s hard.

If they don’t see these things lived out on a consistent basis, my words won’t matter much.

Heard: As important as example is, teaching is also important. Modeling the Christian life for my children is where discipleship begins, but teaching is where they can begin to understand the why behind the what. This is where we can give form and body to the lessons they need to learn.

If my children see me drop some money in the offering plate at church, that’s good. But it’s better if they not only see me do that, but also hear me explain the why behind giving.

Both of these first two elements place the responsibility squarely on my shoulders as the Dad. I initiate the process. I show. I tell.

But notice the next element.

Received: This phase of the process places the responsibility on my children. At some point as they grow up, they’ll have seen my example. They’ll have heard my teaching. And then it will be up to them to receive what I’ve given them.

Interestingly, this receiving is still separate from doing. (Remember that Paul tells the Philippians to do the things they’ve learned, and received, and heard, and seen in him.) Apparently this receiving is a personal acceptance of what is true and right, but it doesn’t extend all the way to active application.

Learned: Even after our children have accepted the truth as true, there’s still more to learn. If we teach them the truths of God consistently from a young age, many of them will receive that truth with only a partial understanding of it. Thus, they need to keep learning in order to develop a more complete knowledge.

This phase places responsibility on both me and my children. I need to keep modeling and teaching, and they need to keep learning.

Do: This is the final step. This is the culmination of our efforts. We’ve modeled and taught, our children have received and learned. Now it’s time for them to do.

The fact that Paul urges the Philippian Christians to action is instructive in itself. It’s remarkably easy to know the truth—to have received it and learned it—and then sit back passively and never get around to doing it.

We want our children to get around to doing.

But guess what? It starts with us.

We know that we need to model and teach. As Dads, most of us have probably received that truth. We’ve even learned about it.

But that’s not enough.

It’s time to do.

IFI works diligently to serve the Christian community in Illinois with email alerts, video reports, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences and cultural commentaries. We do not accept government funds nor do we run those aggravating popup ads to generate funds.  We depend solely on the support of readers like you.

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  We need your support, and are deeply grateful for those who stand with.

Earlier this week I reported how YouTube had come under attack from various LGBT websites and YT channels and social media accounts. The internet giant had committed the cardinal sin of playing conservative Christian ads on LGBT channels. How dare they!

To add insult to injury, YouTube had previously demonetized many of these LGBT videos, just as YouTube demonetized hundreds of my videos. They were deemed not appropriate for all advertisers. Now, YouTube had the gall to advertise a video like “Can You Be Gay and Christian?” on these very same channels. This was too much to bear.

The Twitter world was set ablaze, and a number of YouTubers expressed their disappointment and anger. (See my previous article for details.)

In reality, though, this was not really a very big story.

This very week, I received word that an ad encouraging gay men to get HIV testing appeared before one of my videos. These things happen, and I doubt YouTube can be 100 percent sure that an offending ad will never pop-up.

But it’s not the end of the world. No one was raped or molested or tortured or robbed or killed.

And I seriously doubt that the conservative Christian ads were appearing day and night on these LGBT channels. In fact, for the most part, I keep seeing reference to the same one or two ads appearing on the same one or two LGBT channels. What’s the big deal?

But now, this is a story. A big story. A cause for moral outrage. A cause calling for justice. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

Outrage Overkill

Already this week, the story has been covered by Forbes, Business Insider, the Advocate, and the Independent (UK), along with a host of other sites, including LGBTQ Nation, Pink News, and the Verge. (There are too many to link here.) It’s even made it to the Spanish language Posta site. (Perhaps other languages too?)

YouTubers with large followers have weighed in as well, including Phillip DeFranco, with 6.1 million subscribers (his video had more than 1.2 million views in less than two days; and, again, I could cite many more YouTube examples).

Almost every story included clips (or still shots) from our “Can You Be Gay and Christian?” video. And for the most part, interviewers have focused on FTM transgender Chase Ross, one of the most offended parties involved and one of the first to speak out on YouTube.

As a result, our video has been swarmed by angry members of the LGBT community, with one woman rallying others to take over our video feed. (She posted, “Where are all my gay motherf—kers at? We taking over this b—ch.”)

Prager U remains in a legal battle with Google and YouTube over the truly outrageous treatment it received. In contrast, what happened with our ads running on a few LGBT channels is hardly a story at all, let alone a cause around which people should rally.

The negative exposure has been such that we went from a 10-1 positive response (roughly 670 to 70, which would be a typical ratio for videos watched by our subscribers) to barely 2-1 positive (at present, 2,098 to 929).

Of the nearly 1,100 comments (it would be much higher if we didn’t have to delete lots of posts for incredibly vulgar and offensive language), many are quite ugly. They include choice comments like, “die you old bast—d”. And, “oh and some people can’t help being gay it’s just like what paedophiles like you can’t help you dumb a– doctor can’t do jack sh-t no one will miss you when i kill you.” And, “you look like pedophile colonel sanders.” And, “Breeders are f—ing disgusting.” And, “I seriously hope that every single one of you twisted, evil monsters that liked this video are hit by a bus. This isn’t exaggeration. I want the plague you’re spreading wiped off the face of the planet.” (Remember: There are others too vile to print, even while omitting some of the profanity.)

And every day, the outrage grows greater. How dare YouTube do such a monstrous thing!

And the more it is reported, the more the story grows, until it has become a cause for social justice. Just look at how unfairly LGBT’s are being treated!

It’s On

Again, as I stated earlier in the week (and as the Advocate fairly quoted me), we never intended for our video to be advertised on LGBT channels, and my preference is that it not be advertised there. I had no desire to go into someone’s own “territory” and present to them something they didn’t want to see. Nor did I ask for a veritable flood of profane comments and negative responses. (On the flip side, we produced the video to be viewed, so we’re thrilled with the day and night publicity, even if it’s negative. Let the message get out!)

Yet all the while, Prager U remains in a legal battle with Google and YouTube over the unfair treatment it received, treatment which really was outrageous. In contrast, what happened with our ads running on a few LGBT channels is hardly a story at all, let alone a cause around which people should rally. But rallying they are, and so the story now takes on a life of its own. We’re watching it unfold in front of our eyes.

But let me not end here by merely observing what is happening. Instead, may I ask for five seconds of your time? I’m simply asking you to click on the link to my video, and give it a thumbs up. (If you haven’t watched it yet, it’s only 6 minutes long, so watch and then respond. You can even leave a comment!)

One viewer said, “It’s a gospel version of a Prager U video.” Sweet!

Your five second investment of time will help us push back against the tide of angry LGBT activists and their allies. If the battle is on, then let it be on. And may truth triumph in the end.

This article originally posted at Stream.org.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently came out with a report with staggering information.  Suicide is on the rise.  The report mentions that suicide rates are up more than 30 percent in half of the United States since 1999.

The report also shares that more than half of the people who died by suicide did not have a known mental health condition. In 2016 alone, about 45,000 lives were lost to suicide.  Suicide is now one of the top 10 causes of death in the United States.  Anthony Bourdain, Robin Williams, and Kate Spade were all victims of suicide.

What leads a person to a place of contemplating of taking their own life?  In many cases, it’s boiled down to the feeling of being hopeless.

When we edge God out of our society, government and lives, we will place our hope, strength and comfort in the wrong things.

Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 paints a grim picture of what life looks like without God.

“I saw the tears of the oppressed—
and they have no comforter;
power was on the side of their oppressors—
and they have no comforter.
And I declared that the dead,
who had already died,
are happier than the living,
who are still alive.
But better than both
is the one who has never been born,
who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.”

Solomon (the writer of this passage) examined the oppressed. He noted that there is none to comfort them in their oppression. If there is no comforter, the oppressed suffer, and that’s just the way things are.

After seeing a life of hurt, pain and brokenness without a comforter, the final conclusion was that it would be better never to exist in a world without God due to the amount of evil and suffering under the sun.  (Verse 3)

As unrighteousness continues to be on the increase in our culture, the Church needs to be ready to minister, because unrighteousness only leads to brokenness. 

Abortion leads to brokenness

Illinois Right To Life quotes some eye-opening statistics, “Women with a history of abortion have higher rates of anxiety (34 percent higher), depression (37 percent), alcohol use/misuse (110 percent), marijuana use (230 percent), and suicidal behavior (155 percent) compared to those who have not had abortions.”

Homosexuality leads to brokenness

The Central Disease Center has quoted on their website, “In 2014, gay and bisexual men made up an estimated 2 percent of the U.S. population, but accounted for 70 percent of new HIV infections. Approximately 492,000 sexually active gay and bisexual men are at high risk for HIV.”

Divorce leads to brokenness

Divorce makes a negative impact on the family, not to mention the lasting effects on children.

Pornography leads to brokenness

Porn ruins a person’s ability to relate with others sexually and ruins marriages.  A 2016 Science Magazine study revealed divorce rates double when people start watching porn.

Premarital Sex leads to brokenness

In addition to the risk of contracting STDs and other diseases or becoming pregnant, premarital sex leads to emotional distress, distrust, regret and emptiness.

As unrighteousness continues to be on the increase in our culture, the Church must be ready to minister, because unrighteousness only leads to brokenness.

And sadly the brokenness will continue if we allow evil to prevail in our culture, government and families.  As the Church, we’d better get ready to respond. We have the message of hope.

Jesus said, “Look, I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see that the fields are white for harvest.” ~John 4:35

What can you do? 

PRAY: That pastors and churches will be faithful in sharing the full Gospel, which can bring hope and cultural transformation.

PRAY: That you can be a willing vessel in sharing God’s wonderful message of grace.

PRAY: That you can support ministries that are promoting a biblical worldview and/or ministering to those who are broken.

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

What does it mean to be a Conservative? Historically, issues of faith and family that reflect traditional morals and values – the sanctity of life, heterosexual marriage, and belief in God and in His Word – have been the primary hallmarks of conservatism. But today, a new type of Conservative is emerging, one that identifies as an atheist, transgender, or gay. How (or can) we reconcile our established definition of conservatism with the views presented by these new, non-religious, non-traditional, self-proclaimed Conservative voices?

Dr. Michael L. Brown contrasts the foundational importance of faith, family, and freedom to the traditional conservative position with the new conservatism that espouses a redefinition of marriage and LGBT activism. Please watch and listen to this important 5 minute video as Dr. Brown asks: Is it possible to be a true Conservative if one does not adhere to the most fundamental values of conservatism?

Please share!

I hated being a single parent. Still do. I am sure my grown children agree that being raised by Homer Simpson was horrible. They are all healthy and productive members of society, despite being raised by an ogre, in no small part because of our extended family. Aunts and uncles caulked the gaps left by my inadequacies, sins and failures.

Family is not a reality show or a how-to series on cable. I had a whole family until my wife went home to Christ in 1998, leaving three small children in my charge and care.

I did the best I could. Without my wife, my partner, my best pal, my conscience and the loving womb of all three children, family became an exercise in frustration and disappointments. You cannot have it all without things being whole.  Almost is never good enough.

Our society and the cultural propaganda exerting its doctrines upon us have been harping and chipping away at traditional marriage and family integrity for decade. As a result, family becomes whatever we want it to be—composed of vampires, zombies or visitors from outer space.

Murphy Brown was a television show that was called “groundbreaking,” because it challenged thousands of years of human joy and happiness: “The show has been seen as blazing a trail for single-mother characters in Ally McBeal, Sex and the City, Desperate Housewives” that “benefited from Bergen’s character going through a political maelstrom so none of them had to.”

Talk about some real Dan’l Boone courage.

Well, that was Time Magazine’s Richard Zoglin and not Francis Parkman talking about real ground breakers.

Television—network and cable—controls the messaging. Love is polyamorous instant gratification. Sex has no consequence. Fathers are jokes.  Mothers are best when single. Children are malleable props. Disappointments and set-backs are the mean of destroying marriage. The heart wants what the heart wants.

Death happens. Widows and even widowers can do it alone through their vale of tears, but it is not easy and it’s far from ideal. The freely chosen legal cleaving of marriage that our society’s desire for instant gratification and aversion to pain recommend should be a last resort and only in the case of an abusive spouse.

This life can be and often is a vale of tears, but marriage makes it less so.  Thousands of years of husband and wife partnerships is really the ground-breaking rubric—notwithstanding the views of Norman Lear and HBO.

IFI works diligently to serve the Christian community in Illinois with email alerts, video reports, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences and cultural commentaries. We do not accept government funds nor do we run those aggravating popup ads to generate funds.  We depend solely on the support of readers like you.

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  We need your support, and are deeply grateful for those who stand with.

My parents set a good example of marriage —
now I want to set a good example for my children

Today my wife and I are celebrating our seventh anniversary. I know seven years isn’t very long compared to many couples, but it’s certainly been long enough for us to experience our share of life changes, special moments, and challenging times.

Our culture has become increasingly mixed up in its portrayal of marriage. Rates of cohabitation continue to rise. 40 percent of babies are born to unmarried mothers. “Self-marriage” is a thing. People are getting engaged to objects. And, of course, the very definition of marriage has been rewritten by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Other commentators with more expertise than me can weigh in on what these trends mean for our culture from a sociological or political perspective.

But whatever else the changing landscape of marriage might portend, I can tell you one thing it definitely means: our children need clear examples of husbands and wives living together joyfully, lovingly, and faithfully. The next generation needs to know that marriage still works when we follow God’s plan.

I’m thankful that I’ve had some great examples of marriage in my own life. My parents are still together after more than four decades. I’m sure many people thought they’d never make it. They married young and walked through some pretty tough times financially. But here they are, forty-one years later, still married, still happy, and still each other’s favorite person to spend time with.

A friend once told my parents that the only reason they didn’t get a divorce was that they were “too boring.” That friend’s history, unfortunately, wasn’t as “boring” as theirs. She was married, divorced, had another man’s baby, then moved in with a third man for several years before they finally decided to tie the knot.

This woman, by the way, was the mother of my best friend during my childhood. All these many years later, I still remember my friend telling me, after his parents divorced, “I don’t have a Dad.”

I’m glad my parents were boring enough to stay together.

My grandparents are another good example, still together after more than sixty years. Life hasn’t always been easy for them either, but they’re still together and in love as they walk through their sunset years.

Our marriages are about more than ourselves. If we don’t honor the institution of marriage in our own lives, how will our children see that a happy, fulfilling, godly marriage is possible—let alone desirable? And how dare we speak out against the perversions of marriage happening in our culture if we’re not guarding against the dissolution of our own marriages at home?

The world is doing its best to portray sin as wonderful, exciting, satisfying, and pleasurable. Are we doing our best to make Christian marriage attractive to our children, or are we making it appear dull, boring, and unsatisfying . . . if not worse?

I’m not saying we need to compete with sin in a contest to make godly marriage look more exciting than the worldly perversions. What I am saying is that we have the powerful opportunity to be an example to our own children, as well as to other young people around us. Are we using that power for good, or are we reinforcing the world’s message that traditional marriage isn’t so great?

Putting it another way, if your children are someday tempted to wander off into moral sin, will the memory of your marriage help call them back from the brink, or will it serve as a justification for their bad choices? I know we’re not responsible for their every decision, but I want to do all I can to stand between them and their foolish choices.

The problem, of course, is that building a good marriage happens in the context of our busy, hectic, everyday lives. It takes place in the context of tight budgets, plumbing problems, sleepless nights, potty training, job loss, aging parents, and a thousand other stressful occurrences. And somehow, in the middle of all of that, we lose sight of the wonder—the wonder of God bringing two people together, forging them into one, and giving them the grace to love and live and laugh and still love.

I don’t know about you, but I want to enjoy a wonderful marriage. And not only that, I want to show my children a wonderful marriage. Because one of these fine days, they’ll grow up, meet that special someone, and start the process all over again. When they do, I want them to have some good examples to look back on.

And when they do happen to glance back, they’ll probably catch me kissing their mother.

Download the IFI App!

We now have an IFI mobile app that enables us to deliver great content based on the “Tracks” you choose, including timely legislative alerts, cultural commentaries, upcoming event notifications, links to our podcasts, video reports, and even daily Bible verses to encourage you. This great app is available for Android and iPhones.

Key Features:

• It’s FREE!
• Specific content for serious Christians
• Performs a spiritual assessment
• Sends you daily Scriptures to encourage and equip you
• You determine when and how much content you get