Marital challenges and changes are not often on the minds of the young or newlywed.  However, five or ten years into a marriage and the dreams of a honeymooning couple can fade pretty quickly as the pressures of family life, work, or finances bear down on day to day living.  Compounding this are cultural messages that run counter to family, fidelity, and marriage.  This occurring alongside a high level of divorce, can make the idea of a happy lasting marriage going into a couple’s senior years seem difficult or unlikely.

Some studies have found that marital happiness does decline over time.   However, a new study by sociologist Paul Amato challenges the notion that couples that stay married are headed for an unhappy time in their golden years.  The study titled, “Changes in Spousal Relationships Over the Marital Life Course,” is the first to compare the relationship trajectories of spouses who stayed married to the those who eventually divorced.  It is also one of a few to follow couples for decades, which means it included a substantial number of couples in long-term marriages.

They found that marital quality actually improves over the years for couples who don’t split up. Specifically, although marital happiness declined slightly in the early years of marriage, it improved after about 20 years for most longtime married couples, while discord improved continuously over time. Shared activities—like recreation, eating dinner, or visiting friends together—also improved after about 20 years. The study points out “about half of all marriages last a lifetime, and the long-term outlook for most of these marriages is upbeat, with happiness and interaction remaining high and discord declining.”

The Institute for Family Studies conducted an interview with Dr. Paul Amato about his study that you can read and learn more about his findings HERE.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

It’s official. The Mormons have finally figured out that they can’t do business with the devil. Bully for them.

More specifically, the Salt Lake City-based denomination is flipping off the demonic forces assigned by Beelzebub to wage war on God’s creation of male and female.

That’s where the minions of Hell have been concentrating their firepower in recent years.  It’s not for nothing that we’ve been told, over and over, that male-female differences are irrelevant and reality is entirely subjective.

But, be of good cheer. Resistance to the cultural insanity is growing.  Last Tuesday, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints announced a parting of the ways with what used to be the Boy Scouts of America.

The Mormons have tried to look the other way since 2013, when the Scouts permitted gay members.  But it just got worse.  The Scouts’ century-old moral code, itself derived from Biblical morality, was pummeled from within and without.  The coup de grace was ordered by liberal corporate donors and performed by quisling BSA board members.  I bet none of them can tie a decent knot, but they sure can sabotage a great American institution.

Well, as noted, the Mormons have had enough.  Last year, the LDS pulled 185,000 boys aged 14 to 18 out of the Scouts.  When the remaining 425,000 boys depart for Mormon youth organizations, it will represent a nearly 20 percent decline in Scout membership, which is now at 2.3 million and falling from a high of 4 million back in the 1960s.

The Boy Scouts were never a genderless service organization like 4-H or other youth groups.   Boy Scouts were taught to be strongly masculine gentlemen guided by timeless values, such as respecting girls and women instead of identifying with them.  They molded millions of boys into modern-day knights, not just “persons.”

Despite winning every single court challenge to their policies, the Boy Scouts had been doing a duck and hide.  They abandoned public defense of their values and embraced only freedom of association, which any bone-headed group could claim.

In May 2015, BSA National President Robert Gates said that keeping out openly gay leaders “cannot be sustained.”  Sure, it could have.  But that would have meant actually fighting the bullies.  So, instead, the BSA National Executive Board voted to overturn the common-sense policy that had protected boys since 1910.  For some reason, this craven stunt did not settle things down.

Mr. Gates was not exactly new to this.  He was the Secretary of Defense under Barack Obama who orchestrated the end of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy against open homosexuality.

He has since gone on to be chancellor at the College of William and Mary, which was chartered in Williamsburg, Virginia in 1693 and named after the British royal couple.  As far as we know, neither William nor Mary ever got confused as to who was king and who was queen.

But back to the Organization Formerly Known as the Boy Scouts of America.  Following Mr. Gates’s lead, the Scouts announced on January 30, 2017, that girls who think they’re boys could enroll in previously boys-only programs.  On May 2, they finally took “Boy” out of the Boy Scouts and changed the name to Scouts BSA.

I wonder if the Girl Scouts, who are decidedly peeved at the brazen poaching of their potential recruits, will follow suit and excise “girl.”  They kicked God out of their oath long ago and have welcomed transgenders, so why not?

When the Boy Scouts began caving in 2013, Mormon leaders and some Protestants and Catholics tried to finesse it, extracting a promise that their troops could keep their own values.

More and more people are finding out the hard way that there is no placating Leftist bullies who mean to remake America into a socialist version of Sodom and Gomorrah.

That’s why some farsighted former Scout leaders founded Trail Life USA in 2013 to pick up the mantle. Now chartered in 48 states, Trail Life, while unabashedly Christian, welcomes all boys who abide by their standards. They work right alongside the American Heritage Girls, founded by former Girl Scout leaders for similar reasons.

I’ve met with Trail Life’s leaders, and they are stand-up guys.  As an Eagle Scout, I’d be proud to see boys in our family benefit from what Scouting used to offer and Trail Life USA still does.

This article was originally published by Townhall.com

“I also think… that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”
~ lesbian activist Masha Gessen

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

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

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

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

In the novel 1984, George Orwell named the process in which homosexuals (as well as the “trans” cult) regularly engage: Newspeak. Here is how Orwell explained Newspeak:

Newspeak was the official language of Oceania, and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of IngSoc, or English Socialism….

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all… a heretical thought… should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever….

[T]he special function of certain Newspeak words… was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them….

[W]ords which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them. (emphasis added)

Homosexuals and their allies seek to redefine words in the service of their ideology and would surely oppose any word that would signal a distinction between heterosexual unions and homosexual unions. A new term that pointed to the reality that homosexual and heterosexual unions are not identical would carry the risk that positive connotations would accrete to the term “huwelijk.”

It’s remarkable that so many are willing to destroy the institution of marriage without ever giving much reasoned thought to whether marriage has a nature (i.e., an ontology) or to what public purposes it serves. G.K. Chesterton warned against this kind of blind willingness to destroy an institution (and the jettisoning of the central feature of marriage—sexual complementarity—does, indeed, constitute the destruction of the institution of marriage):

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution.

In the desperate quest to rationalize their redefinition of marriage, homosexuals asserted that the marriage of any particular homosexual couple will have no effect on the marriage of any particular heterosexual couple. But that’s a silly non-argument. If Bob and Jim were to marry, their marriage would not affect mine. But if Bob were to marry his brother, it wouldn’t affect my marriage either. If Bob were to marry five women or five people of assorted sexes, it wouldn’t affect my marriage. If Bob were to marry five children of assorted sexes, it wouldn’t affect my marriage. Does the absence of effect on my marriage in these cases provide justification for legalizing incestuous, polygamous, polyamorous, or “intergenerational” marriages?

Eventually the redefinition of marriage will affect children, public education, the public’s conception of marriage, the public’s investment in marriage, and the future health of America. Severing marriage from both biological sex and reproductive potential renders marriage irrelevant as a public institution.

The most salient aspects of marriage as an institution sanctioned by the government are not subjective feelings of affection and sexual attraction. The government has no vested interest in the private subjective feelings of marriage partners. That’s why even arranged marriages are legal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Torching-Marriage.mp3

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

My wife is about to give birth to our fourth child in six years. Our first two—both boys—were born just seventeen months apart. Our third—a girl—came just over two years later. Now, we’re about to become parents again.

Becoming a father has been a life-changing experience to say the least. Welcoming children into the world should be enough to make any man pause and realize the magnitude of the responsibility he carries. It’s certainly something I’ve contemplated.

What sort of father am I? What sort of father do I want to be? One day I will depart this life and leave behind only some memories and a legacy of the man I was and the lives I touched. The time to do good, to speak encouragement, to tie heart strings, and to lovingly nurture, will pass. Time is short. And so I ask again, What sort of father do I want to be?

There are so many answers I could give to this question—so many qualities I hope to possess as a father. I know I won’t be perfect. Thankfully, that’s not required. My children only need one perfect Father, and I’m not that one. But I do want to aim high. In an age when fatherhood is in crisis, I want to rise above the cultural trends and, with God’s help, be a dad who will zealously raise my children to honor God and be a shining light in their corner of the world.

This is the father I want to be.

First and foremost, I want to be a godly example. I want to have a relationship with my Savior that others—especially my family—can see. I can’t pass something on that I don’t possess. If I try to live with a façade of godliness without sincerely seeking to live righteously, my children will see it. Even if they are unable to articulate the difference between the genuine and the fake, it will impact them just the same. Faking it is never a good idea, but faking it when everyone knows it’s fake is worse than useless—it’s loathsome and contemptible. If I want my children to be godly, I have to be godly. If I want them to love and honor Christ, then I have to love and honor Christ. It’s that simple.

I want my children to know that I pray for them, and that Dad’s prayers make a difference. What if, God forbid, I were to be separated from my children for a prolonged period of time, and quite literally the only thing I could do to influence their lives was to pray for them? What if I couldn’t teach them God’s Word, nurture their faith, build character into their lives, or point them in the right direction each and every day? What if I was entirely cut off from them? What if all I could do was pray? I hope I never find myself in that position, but I think I’d do a lot more praying for my children under those circumstances than I do now. I think I would cry out to God with a depth of feeling and a level of complete dependence on Him that I rarely muster today. What does this say about me? Does it say that I’m trusting my own efforts to raise virtuous children more than I’m trusting God? I’m afraid it does. This is an area where I need to grow. I want to be a father who knows the power of prayer and who relies on God every single day.

I also want to live a life of honor and integrity in front of my children. I want them to see me doing right even if it costs me something of this world’s treasure. What is the cost, after all, in comparison to the lesson my children will learn? And what will it profit me if I compromise my principles to preserve my treasure, only to lose my children’s souls? When they one day face the storms of temptation themselves—when they are confronted with a choice between profitable compromise and costly conviction—I want them to be able to remember their dad, who stood for what was right regardless of personal sacrifice. Shame on me if they can ever look back at my example to justify a dishonorable action. That’s not the legacy I want to leave.

I want to be a father who treats my children’s mother well and shows my kids by daily example what a happy Christian marriage looks like. I want my kids to feel the security of knowing that their dad and mom are still crazy about each other and don’t mind showing it. We’ll keep it appropriate, of course, but there’s nothing wrong with displaying affection for each other while the kids look on. My wife and I will be the only example of marriage our children will see on such a close, personal level. For better or worse, we’ll be on display. Our children will either look at us and say, “I want my marriage to be like that,” or they’ll say, “If that’s what a Christian marriage looks like, no thanks.” I want to be a father who does my part to give them a beautiful picture of what God had in mind when He created marriage.

Raising and nurturing children may be serious business, but I don’t want life to be all duty and no delight. I want to be a cheerful, buoyant presence in my children’s lives. I want to be the kind of father who will enjoy a good romp with them before dinner, read their favorite stories with silly voices, sing goofy songs, play games, tell jokes, and do my part to make ours a happy home where laughter is heard and good times are enjoyed. Life is too serious to be serious all the time. Yes, life with children is complicated and messy, but I don’t want the complications and messiness to get in the way of happy times and good memories.

My kids enjoy outings to the park, hikes in the woods, and other adventures that are rarely simple or convenient. They’re innocently unaware of how much effort it costs Mom and Dad to make the memorable event happen—unless, of course, we clue them in by our attitudes and actions. If I grumble as I pack the car, if I fuss and fret when the kids get dirty, if I sigh, mutter, and gripe the day away, I can communicate to my children that raising them is more hassle, more stress, more work than I want to deal with. I can squelch their good times with my complaining, my impatience, my sarcastic or cutting remarks. I can let my comfort or convenience get in between me and the hearts of my children. Or I can smile, send up a quick prayer for some extra grace and patience, and head out to make some memories with my kids. That’s the kind of father I want to be—the kind that never says, “You’re more trouble than you’re worth.”

I want to be kind. Gentle. Loving. Humble. Humble enough to recognize my dependence on God, humble enough to apologize to my children when I mess up, humble enough to know that I don’t have all the answers and that I need help.

Finally, I want to finish well. Many great men have begun well, only to stray later in life. Solomon began by shunning riches and honor when he requested wisdom in response to God’s apparent offer to grant any desire. And yet, later in life, Solomon turned from God, following after the pleasures of this life with a rapacious appetite. When I reach my final day, I want it to be said of me that, by God’s grace, I lived a life of honor and integrity to the very end. I am keenly aware of the fact that those who reap the greatest harvest are not those who get off to the fastest or showiest start, but those who live a life of faithfulness day after day, year after year. I want to be that kind of man.

Father God, grant me the grace to walk before you in humility, relying on you each and every day to give me the strength I need to raise children who know, love, and serve you. Sanctify me so that I will be not just the father I want to be, but the father You want me to be. Let that be my highest aim, my deepest desire. And help me daily to point my children to You, the one perfect Father we can all share together as we follow after Christ. Amen.

The nation is in the midst of a debate over gun control and to a lesser extent, mental health issues, stemming from another school shooting. Not to diminish those two issues, researcher Bradford Wilcox points out that nearly every shooting over the last year in Wikipedia’s “list of U.S. school attacks” involved a young man whose parents divorced or never married in the first place.

Wilcox, writes:

“As the nation seeks to make sense of these senseless shootings, we must also face the uncomfortable truth that turmoil at home all too often accounts for the turmoil we end up seeing spill onto our streets and schools.

The social scientific evidence about the connection between violence and broken homes could not be clearer.”  Boys living in single mother homes are almost twice as likely to end up delinquent compared to boys who enjoy good relationships with their father. Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson has written that “Family structure is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, predictor of variations in urban violence across cities in the United States.” His views are echoed by the eminent criminologists Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, who have written that “such family measures as the percentage of the population divorced, the percentage of households headed by women, and the percentage of unattached individuals in the community are among the most powerful predictors of crime rates.”

Why is fatherlessness such a big deal for our boys (almost all of these incidents involve boys)? Putting the argument positively, sociologist David Popenoe notes, “Fathers are important to their sons as role models. They are important for maintaining authority and discipline. And they are important in helping their sons to develop both self-control and feelings of empathy toward others, character traits that are found to be lacking in violent youth.

Of course, most boys who grow up in a home without their father turn out okay. They pick up the right cues from a conscientious high-school soccer coach, flourish under the watchful eye of a devoted grandfather, or benefit from the consistent discipline of a strong single mother. But every year enough fatherless boys fall prey to the ministrations of a gang or the rage induced by a high-school bully or the emotional fallout of painful divorce to end up causing real harm to themselves or the members of their communities.”

Click HERE to read more.

When no-fault divorce swept across America in the early 1970’s it was presented as a way to end high conflict abusive situations with greater ease and speed.  It was also said to be helpful to children by reducing conflict, though mountains of research have seriously undercut that claim.  Many attorneys have observed that during a divorce process now, rather than arguing over a divorce decree, as occurred before, couples now argue over child arrangements and possessions.  Most dissolving marriages do not involve abusive behaviors placing children or a spouse in serious risk.

Today, “irreconcilable differences” is the most common reason given for a divorce, even though divorce is automatically granted under no-fault.  Yet, research has found that in a great many cases, couples are not united in their desire to end their marriage.  Often one spouse wants a divorce and the other does not.  Prior to no-fault couples often had to negotiate for a divorce, and the longer time that it took for divorce sometimes saw many reconciling their differences.

A new study in Minnesota among “mixed-agenda couples” in which one spouse wanted a divorce but the other did not, has some promising results.  It found that after initial discussions about how their marriage reached a crisis and that reconciliation was possible, nearly half would attempt reconciliation counseling.  This is significant in that many of those studied had already seen an attorney and were well down the divorce path.

Their research shows that a significant number of couples considering divorce could benefit from slowing down the process, reconsidering and seeking help with reconciliation.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

The United States Department of Health and Human Services has issued a policy regarding allocation of $260 million for the Title X family planning program.

Americans United for Life attorney Deanna Wallace told OneNewsNow that the federal program is designed to provide for women what many existing organizations do not do.

“It emphasized not only the department’s focus on funding programs dealing with a broad range of life-affirming planning – such as preconception care, natural family planning and fertility care – but they also make it clear that none of that funding would be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning,” Wallace informed.

OneNewsNow has previously reported that Planned Parenthood services and the number of their clients have been dropping every year for some time – and their clinics reach a limited number of people … compared to the need.

“Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer prenatal care, they don’t offer infertility care, [and] they don’t offer well[ness] woman visits for the vast majority of Americans, so we think this funding should be rerouted to those comprehensive centers that can actually offer woman a lot more,” Wallace insisted.

The all-encompassing centers to which Wallace refers would essentially be the many thousands of local, federally qualified health clinics – ones that could provide vastly more efficient and varied assistance that Planned Parenthood does not offer women.

Read more HERE.

This article was originally published at OneNewsNow.com

The massacre of seventeen students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida is just the latest in what seems like an accelerating manifestation of school shootings. Parents, students, citizens, activists and law makers are justifiably angry.

Demands to “do something” are loud and urgent, driven by a dread that the next shooting will be at my child’s school. Even some staunch defenders of the Second Amendment are shaken, agreeing that “it’s time for a national conversation about the Second Amendment, gun violence, gun safety, protecting our children and self-defense.”

There is a problem—and it’s getting worse. “During the 1950s, there were 17 school shootings. In the 1960s, 18. In the 1970s, 30. In the 1980s, 39. In the 1990s, 62. In the first decade of this century (2000-2009), 60 school shootings. From 2010-2018, 153.”

In the search for a solution, tension inevitably develops between protecting our constitutional right to “keep and bear arms,” and preventing the horrific acts committed by people with guns who are bent on murder and mayhem. On the extremities, one side advocates for an all-out ban on guns, while the other fends off any attempt to diminish the weight of the Second Amendment. Between the two are myriad proposals for restricting everything from what type of guns can be bought to how they can be purchased to how many can be owned to what accessories are permitted.

If there is one point of agreement, it is that any kind of mass slaughter, whether in Parkland, Las Vegas, Orlando or Richmond, is unacceptable. “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) is a universally recognized human ideal.

A gun ban is unconstitutional and impractical

We can rule out a ban on all guns for at least two reasons. First, American citizens have the legal, unassailable right to possess and carry firearms. Ratified in 1791, the Second Amendment was a prescient measure put in place by our Founders specifically as a counterweight to the centralized power of the federal government. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld that right as recently as 2008 (District of Columbia v. Heller) and 2010 (McDonald v. City of Chicago).

Second, while estimates vary, there are probably more than 300 million guns in the U.S., which has the highest gun ownership rate in the world at 88 guns per 100 citizens. Nine million Americans pack a loaded handgun monthly and three million carry daily. It is impossible to imagine confiscating or running a gun buy-back program for that number of weapons. Guns are here to stay.

Some restrictions are allowable

We can also rule out unrestricted access to any and all kinds of guns at any age that the constitutional purist may want. Political historian and pundit, Jay Cost, writes that a proper understanding of the Second Amendment recognizes that it “establishes an individual right for a public purpose — and it therefore follows that the people, acting through their representatives, can properly set the terms of how that right will be enjoyed.”

In other words, we have the individual right to keep and bear arms for the specific purpose of defending ourselves and our neighbors, and the weapons we bear should reflect that purpose. That gives us all some latitude to debate proper restrictions. For example, machine guns were banned from private ownership during the Reagan administration, a law that is still in effect today. Certain semi-automatic rifles defined as “assault weapons” were outlawed for ten years during the Clinton administration (though with little effect).

Laws like those prove that there are reasonable limits the public is willing to have imposed. Keep in mind, however, that “firearms are the most-regulated common consumer product in the United States.” It could be argued that our legal framework surrounding guns is in “infringement” territory already.

Some practical things to do instead

As we consider where to (re)draw the lines on the continuum between unrestricted access and sensible limits to gun ownership, there are other things we can do to reduce the risks of school shootings.

Train and arm teachers. Force must be met with force and the sooner during an incident, the better. After a 1974 attack at a school in Israel, the country “passed a law mandating armed security in schools, provided weapons training to teachers and today runs frequent active shooter drills. There have been only two school shootings since then, and both have ended with teachers killing the terrorists.” It’s already being tried in Colorado, where teachers “are being trained to carry guns in classrooms” in order to respond quickly to attacks.

Hire armed guards. Closely associated with arming teachers is the idea of employing security guards at public schools. We already have a pool of qualified candidates: many of America’s veterans are unemployed, yet are trained to use deadly force. We might also hire retired police officers. Having armed guards on location makes them first responders who can eliminate the unprotected gap between when an attack starts and law enforcement arrives.

Use gun-violence restraining orders. Writing in National Review, David French promotes the idea of Gun-Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs). As he explains, a GVRO is “an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns,” and that the “concept of the GVRO is simple, not substantially different from the restraining orders that are common in family law, and far easier to explain to the public than our nation’s mental-health adjudications.” Such an approach addresses an individual rather than an entire category.

Home school your kids. The Columbine massacre was a watershed moment for the country. It was also a watershed moment in our decision to home school our children. While it has its challenges, home schooling not only keeps your children physically safe, but you are the primary influence on their intellectual, emotional and spiritual development. If home schooling isn’t for you, consider a private Christian school. “Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it” (Proverbs 22:6).

It’s not the guns: it’s us

Whatever we decide to do in response to this latest horror, one fact is inescapable: we are no longer a virtuous society that can be categorically trusted with firearms. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

It is getting harder and harder for us to claim to be “a moral and religious people.” At one time we could plausibly make that claim, but not anymore. We are more like the nation of Israel during the time of the judges: “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit” (Judges 17:6).

The issue is the human heart soaked in a secular culture that devalues human life, despises authority, promotes victimhood, mocks religion, glories in debauchery, embraces radical autonomy and rages at the slightest offense.

The breakdown of the family has led to a quarter of our children living in fatherless homes.  Psychotropic drugs are prescribed to more than 8 million children, some as young as 18 months, to control depression, anxiety, and a lack of focus. Ten percent of our children are addicted to video games, many of which are violent. Add a steady diet of movies, music and media that glorify unrestrained sex, violence and drug use, and we’ve got a volatile cocktail of generational depravity that would make Caligula blush.

It all started when we began to systematically remove God from the public square. C.S. Lewis summed up our situation in his work, The Abolition of Man:

“In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

By all means, let’s adopt additional measures for the safety and security of our children. But let’s also be clear that until we regain our virtue, new policies, laws and strategies won’t put an end to the violence. They never have.

RESCHEDULED: IFI Worldview Conference May 5th

We have rescheduled our annual Worldview Conference featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet for Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture.

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

Marriage is not worth it for men. It’s not worth the practical and financial sacrifices, the lost romantic opportunities, or the “lack of freedom.” All in all, a spouse is a ball and chain—of little benefit to any man interested in pursuing happiness and well being.

Considering both the latest survey data and the continuing decline in the marriage rate, it’s fair to say that this viewpoint is becoming more entrenched in our society, particularly among younger men. 

But, despite its prevalence, the ball and chain view of marriage is simply not supported by the research. Indeed, the benefits of marriage for men are substantial by every conceivable measure, including more money, a better sex life, and significantly better physical and mental health. Yet, many men remain ignorant of these benefits, a view seemingly promoted by popular culture.

These are the opening paragraphs of a great briefing paper from the Institute for Family Studies which dispels many of the myths about marriage that are rampant in our culture.  While being a good husband is hard work, the paper points out that the benefits of marriage are numerous for both men and women, and even more so for children.

Natural marriage also has numerous societal and economic benefits. For example:

• Married men earn 10-40% more than comparable single men;
• Marriage increases the earning power of men;
• Married men are less likely to be fired from a job;
• The typical married man in his 50’s has three times the financial assets of his unmarried peer.

Since romance is the topic of the day on this Valentine’s holiday, it is also interesting to note that married men have better sexual relationships than their peers, including unmarried cohabiting, males.   According to the National Health and Social Life Survey, 51% of married men reported that they were “extremely” satisfied with their sex lives compared to only 39% of cohabiting men and 36 percent of single men.

Marriage also has health benefits for men. Research find that men who get married and stay married live almost 10 years longer than their unmarried peers. Married men and women appear to manage health better and adopt healthier lifestyles than their unmarried peers.

Lastly, married men tend to be happier than their cohabiting or unmarried peers. Married men tend to have better mental health outcomes and less depression than their peers.  To read or print out this report click this link: https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/ifs-researchbrief-menmarriage-083117.pdf

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

The nation was rocked again by a recent school shooting in Florida. This incident makes it the eighth school shooting to result in injury or death in just the last seven weeks.

Every time these events happen, pundits on both sides of the political aisle speculate and pontificate on the probable causes, and what could have been done to prevent it. Liberals rail against the NRA and call loudly for stricter gun control. Conservatives point to everything from mind-altering medications, to violent video games and media, to broken homes, to simply culture run amok.

Unfortunately, we’ve been repeating this cycle for years. Senseless violence, followed by political squabbling, followed by more and more senseless violence.

I am not going to try to solve this dilemma with simplistic clichés or feign hopes that throwing insults, or government money, at the problem will fix it. However, I would like to present one piece of the 100-piece puzzle that perhaps hasn’t been adequately examined.

The Psychology of a Murderer

Some years ago, I served a volunteer chaplain for our county’s juvenile detention center. One week when I arrived to teach a Bible class, the unit was on heightened security (and notably elevated stress levels among the staff). Earlier that week, a bomb squad had shut down our local public high school, because a student had called in a bomb threat. Thankfully, law enforcement acted decisively and apprehended the student before there could be an incident.

This young man was in the detention unit where I was going to lead chapel. I wondered if he would make an appearance. I knew most of the other inmates by name, but there was one young man who sat in the corner, by himself, during my Bible class, and looked as hard as granite. He didn’t seem enraged, but rather emotionally dead inside. Cold and unfeeling. As unnerving as it was, conducting the class with a very distracting presence of intensity staring at you, I managed to lead a relatively normal class, until the end. I asked if anyone had any final questions.

Finally, the young man spoke. He stoically asked, “I have a question. Why does God hate gays?” I assured him (and the class) that God offers forgiveness and hope to everyone, regardless of who they are, or what they have done. I told him I would like to answer his question more thoroughly, but my time was up, and I would need to come back later that week during visitation hours. I arranged with the staff to have a meeting with him, and confirmed that he was the potential bomber. I wondered if he would bother to show up. He did.

For about 40 minutes, he asked me very direct, non-emotional questions about the Bible, and about ethics and issues he had always wondered about and struggled over. I did my best to answer his questions from the Bible itself, rather than giving my opinions, and had him read various passages for himself.

When the time allotted expired, he stood, shook my hand, and said, “I want to thank you for answering all of my questions. I wonder why none of the pastors and youth pastors I asked ever answered my questions? They always skirted them, or told me to ‘just have faith,’ or ‘stop thinking so hard’.”

What Can We Do?

I thought of that young man this morning, as I, along with the rest of our nation, am grieving the loss of those killed and injured in this latest school attack. I was thinking about how many of these young people, future killers, may cross our path in the everyday course of life. Could these future killers be our neighbors, our nieces, nephews, kids in our youth groups, or friends of our own children? If they were to ask us direct and hard questions, would we be equipped to give them sound answers? Would we be too busy or distracted to truly listen and take their concerns seriously? Would we deflect, or punt the conversation to “the pastor” or some trained professional?

School shootings are not performed by pollical parties or institutions. They are committed by hurting individual teenagers, who feel marginalized and hopeless. The path to mass murder doesn’t happen overnight. These young adults have countless encounters and conversations with adults in their lives, who have ability to influence them. What if the people who can help them the most, are not politicians, but you and me? It is possible that we may only have one shot to say something that could give them hope and help.

I am not suggesting that you and I can prevent future school shootings by merely being prepared with solid answers about life and faith. But I do know that people without hope, often do desperate and deadly things. Have you found answers to life’s major questions for yourself? Those of us who claim to have life and hope, found through Jesus Christ, can make a big difference in someone’s life if we are prepared to give an answer to others regarding the hope we ourselves have found. Are you ready? If not, now is a great time to prepare!

“But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15).

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

Written by Carol Swain, PhD

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says its primary mission is to fight hatred, teach tolerance, and seek justice. These are noble goals for most Americans, but this is not a noble organization. It is the exact opposite. Given the SPLC’s power and influence over the media and members of Congress, this once highly-regarded civil rights organization deserves fresh scrutiny. Here are seven reasons why the SPLC fails to serve the public interest:

The SPLC ignores basic standards of scientific research in selecting and classifying hate groups and extremists. 

The SPLC’s definition of “hate” is vague. It defines a hate group as one with “beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” SPLC President Richard Cohen testified in December 2017 that its assessment of hate is based on opinion, not objective criteria. (See minutes 43-48 of his testimony.)

George Yancy, a University of North Texas sociologist, documented the SPLC’s subjective nature in a 2014 study, “Watching the Watchers.” Yancy said the group’s methodology seemed more geared to mobilizing liberals than cataloguing hate groups.

The SPLC uses guilt by association to engage in ad hominem attacks against individuals.

Hannah Scherlacher, a Campus Reform worker, found her name listed in the SPLC’s “Anti-LGBT Roundup of Events and Activities” after the conservative Family Research Council interviewed her. Surprisingly, Scherlacher’s interview had nothing to do with LGBT issues. In 2009, soon after I criticized the SPLC for having mission creep, it labeled me “an apologist for white supremacy.”

I committed the crime of endorsing a film produced by a man the SPLC considers a racist.

The SPLC ignores threats posed by leftist, anti-American groups such as ANTIFA, ISIS, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Despite the growing threat of jihadist violence, the SPLC has been reluctant to add Islamic groups with terrorist ties to its list of extremists. It also ignored how, in 2004, the FBI found plans for a “grand jihad” in America within the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. Yet, the SPLC has applied the hate label to Muslim critics of Islam, such as Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Both are listed in its Field Guide to Muslim Extremists.

The SPLC attacks and smears mainstream public service organizations, including churches, ministries, and various pro-family entities.

Targeted organizations include the American Family Association, Alliance Defending Freedom, Act for America, the Center for Immigration Studies, Center for Security Policy, D. James Kennedy Ministries, Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel and the Traditional Values Coalition*. These groups are lumped together by the SPLC with the Aryan Nations, KKK, and neo-Nazis. Preposterous.

Note: labelling an organization as a hate group hurts its fundraising and hinders access to credit card-processing vendors, search engine rankings, and ministry partners.

The SPLC bashes conservatives while pushing a liberal agenda that empowers and supports leftists, communists, and anarchists.

The SPLC regularly bashes President Donald Trump, blaming him for the growth of white nationalism. Their analysis fails to acknowledge that the rise of white nationalism predates the election of Trump by more than two decades. Much of what the president says or does is framed as an attack on civil rights.

Curiously, after violence in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017, the SPLC republished a map detailing the location of more than 1,500 Confederate monuments and symbols. Consider the map a field guide for anarchists.

The SPLC’s labeling of groups and individuals has inspired acts of violence against its targets.

The SPLC is the common thread in two violent hate crimes against conservatives. After the SPLC listed the Family Research Council (FRC) on its hate map, Floyd Lee Corkins II entered FRC headquarters in August 2012 intending to commit mass murder. He was subdued by a security guard who was shot in the process. Likewise, James T. Hodgkinson, who in 2017 shot U.S. House Majority Whip Representative Steve Scalise (R-La.), was an SPLC social media fan.

The SPLC is an irresponsible public charity.

The SPLC has violated the public trust. Nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations are expected to operate in a nonpartisan manner with the public interest at heart. The SPLC, however, is a radical activist group dedicated to suppressing political dissent.

As of 2016, the SPLC had $319 million in net assets with $69 million parked in offshore accounts. Despite its name, the SPLC does not fight poverty. Its salaries are bloated, and only a fraction of its annual contributions are used to support its programs. Writing for Philanthropy Roundtable, a nonprofit group informing the public on philanthropic activity and groups, executive director Karl Zinsmeister wrote:

The SPLC is a cash-collecting machine. In 2015 it vacuumed up $50 million in contributions and foundation grants, a tidy addition to its $334 million holdings of cash and securities and its headquarters worth $34 million. They’ve never spent more than 31 percent of the money they were bringing in on programs, and sometimes they spent as little as 18 percent. Most nonprofits spend about 75 percent on programs.

A strong case can be made to strip the SPLC of its nonprofit, tax-exempt status.

Congress and the media need to take a fresh look at the SPLC. It no longer serves the public interest.

****

[*Editor’s note: The Illinois Family Institute is also on the SPLC “hate groups” list. Read more here and here.]

Carol Swain is a former associate professor of politics at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and former professor of both political science and law at Vanderbilt University. She holds a master of studies in law from Yale University and a Ph.D from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

This article was originally posted at AmericanThinker.com

Chicago Tribune columnist, lifestyle expert, and purveyor of deep thoughts, Heidi Stevens, is taking singer Kelly Clarkson to task  for Clarkson’s admission that she spanks her children. Stevens makes her argument by use of an analogy (“Progressives” really need to work on that skill). Stevens wrote the following:

“Here’s where we play swap-the-person-getting-hit. Let’s say you’re talking to a friend, relative, neighbor, acquaintance from church — any grown-up, really — and you get on the topic of marriage. Let’s say you’re exchanging anecdotes about the ups and downs, the frustrations, the disagreements that occur when you’re sharing a home and a life with a spouse. And let’s say the grown-up tells you, “I just slap my wife when she’s really upsetting me.” Or, “When I really want to teach my husband a lesson, I hit him.” I would find a lot wrong with that. I think most of us would. No amount of domestic violence is socially acceptable. We frown on all of it. Why on earth should we accept a lower bar for children?… I’m frankly astounded that it’s not outlawed in the United States.”

How about we now play swap-the-consequence-for-misbehavior.

Let’s say you’re talking to any grown-up and you get on the topic of marriage. And let’s say the grown-up tells you, “I just put my wife in time-out when she’s really upsetting me. She must sit on a stool facing the wall until I tell her time-out is over. If she gets up before time-out is over, I physically return her to the stool.” Or, “when I really want to teach my wife a lesson, I take away her television privileges or prohibit her from leaving the house for two weeks other than to go to the grocery store or take the kids to school.” Or, “if my wife says something rude, I require her to apologize and give me a hug.  Then I draw up a behavior contract that establishes that further disrespect will result in the loss of her cell phone.”

I would find a lot wrong with that. I think most of us would. No amount of domestic oppression is socially acceptable. Why on earth should we accept a lower bar for children? I’m frankly astounded that time-out, grounding, compulsory apologies, and behavioral contracts are not outlawed in the United States.

It should be obvious that it’s silly at best to compare methods of discipline of children to modes of conduct between husbands and wives.

With faith-filled fervor, Stevens cited glowingly a 2016 meta-analysis of spanking research and solicited quotes from lead author Elizabeth  T. Gershoff who says that the “evidence against spanking is one of the most consistent findings in the field of psychology.” Curiously, Stevens doesn’t cite any criticism of Gershoff’s meta-analysis, like one appearing in Scientific American in which Melinda Wenner Moyer wrote this:

[A]lthough the new analysis did attempt to separate the effects of spanking from those of physical tactics that are considered harsher, research has shown that many parents who spank also use other forms of punishment—so “you’re still not really isolating spanking from overall abusiveness,” explains Christopher Ferguson, a psychologist at Stetson University in Florida. In other words, the negative effects associated with spanking could still be driven in part by parents’ use of other tactics.

The new analysis also did not completely overcome the lumping problem: It considered slapping and hitting children anywhere on the body as synonymous with spanking but these actions might have distinct effects. Some research also suggests that the effects of spanking differ depending on the reasons parents spank, how frequently they do so and how old children are at the time—so the conclusion from the meta-analysis that spanking itself is dangerous may be overly simplistic. “I think it’s irresponsible to make exclusive statements one way or another,” Ferguson says.

Finally, the associations reported in the meta-analysis between spanking and negative outcomes did not control for the potential mediating effects of other variables, which raises the chicken-or-egg question: Are kids spanked because they act out or do they act out because they are spanked—or both? (Even longitudinal studies don’t completely resolve this problem, because behavioral problems may worsen over time regardless of spanking’s effects.) To rule out the possibility that spanking is only associated with bad outcomes because poorly behaved kids are the ones getting spanked, researchers can use statistical methods to control for the influence of temperament and preexisting behavioral characteristics—but these methods are difficult to employ in meta-analyses, and the new analysis did not attempt such a feat. Ferguson did try to control for the effects of preexisting child behavior in a 2013 meta-analysis he published of the longitudinal studies on this issue; when he did, “spanking’s effects became trivial,” he says. As a further demonstration of the importance of careful statistical controls, Robert Larzelere, a psychologist at Oklahoma State University, and his colleagues reported in a 2010 study that grounding and psychotherapy are linked just as strongly to bad behavior as spanking is but that all the associations disappear with the use of careful statistical controls. 

For those who have a tad more confidence in Scripture than in woefully unstable social science—which has become the ever-shifting bible of contemporary American culture—here are some words of wisdom from New Testament professor Walter Frederick Adeney who died at age 71 in 1920:

The primitive rigour of the Book of Proverbs is repudiated by modern manners…. people reject the old harsh methods, and endeavor to substitute milder means of correction. No doubt there was much that was more than rough, even brutal, in the discipline of our forefathers. The relation between father and child was too often lacking in sympathy through the undue exercise of parental authority, and society generally was hardened rather than purged by pitiless forms of punishment. But now the question is whether we are not erring towards the opposite extreme… and failing to let our children feel the need of some painful discipline. We idolize comfort, and we are in danger of thinking pain to be worse than sin. It may be well, therefore, to consider some of the disadvantages of neglecting the old-fashioned methods of chastisement. 

A properly administered spanking (e.g., a swat on the bum) is neither an act of violence nor a beating, and children are not adults.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Chicago-Tribune-Columnist-Wants-To-Outlaw-Spanking_01.mp3

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

-and, please-

One of my hopes for the New Year is that more people will find the courage to ignore or even speak up against cultural and moral insanity instead of going along with it.

It’s difficult in many circumstances, such as working in a large corporation with “diversity” brainwashing sessions.  Not everyone can afford to ask a question and earn an instant pink slip, especially those with dependents.  But we don’t have to become cheerleaders for things that violate our beliefs.

In Hans Christian Andersen’s The Emperor’s New Clothes, a young boy is the only person brave enough to point out the lack of attire on the prancing royal who was sold invisible duds by two con artists.   The rest of the boy’s countrymen fear offending the idiot emperor, and so they abet the illusion.

A similar willingness to deny reality pervades our culture.  We don’t have a monarch with the power of life and death over us, but we do have a decadent ruling elite.  They are tightening the screws on what we can say in public, at work, or even over the Internet if we know what’s good for us.

Take syndicated advice columnist Amy Dickinson, who has appeared on “The Today Show,” “Good Morning America” and National Public Radio and who replaced longtime advice columnist Ann Landers at the Chicago Tribune.

In 150 papers including The Washington Post, Ms. Dickinson, like many of today’s advice columnists, condemns those who resist the latest breakdown in sexual morality.

This past week, she chastised a letter writer for expressing discomfort with a 40-year-old man “seeing” his or her (it’s not clear from the letter) 20-year-old brother.

The writer, who signed the letter as “Dreading,” wrote that “the fact that [my younger brother] is gay isn’t exactly shocking, but it’s something we are all still adjusting to.” The younger brother wants to bring the man to a family gathering (because another brother, after all, is bringing his girlfriend).  The parents are afraid to say anything, and “the whole situation makes me dread going home. I don’t want to be forced into an awkward situation.”

What a delicious dish to serve up to Amy.  Why, it’s so perfect for her purposes that it reads almost as if she made it up herself.

“My first reaction is to wonder why you need so much time to process this simple (and “not shocking”) news, and why this makes you so uncomfortable,” she writes.  “I don’t want to label you as a homophobe, and yet: You are filled with dread and anxiety about the ‘awkwardness’ of your brother’s sexuality.  You have an aversion to it.  This seems pretty phobic to me.”

A phobia is an “irrational, excessive or persistent fear,” according to Webster’s.  It smacks of mental illness.

After hammering “Dreading” a bit more, she concludes with this:  “Grow up!”

Leaving aside her refined argumentation, Amy shows little concern over a guy just out of his teens being pursued by a man 20 years older.  If it were a 20-year-old younger sister who was being hit on by a 40-year-old man, would it be immature to ask a few questions and express some worry? Or would that be “sexist?”

As moral relativism sweeps through the culture, we’re asked more and more to deny obvious truths and instead swallow whoppers like these:

Men and women are interchangeable in all situations, including combat and eventually even childbirth.

The media strive for objectivity and have no discernible political agenda.

All religions equally promote peace, including “the religion of peace,” some of whose adherents are featured in daily news stories about beheadings, public whippings, burnings and suicide bombs strapped to women and children.

Abortion is a minor “procedure” that has nothing to do with taking the life of a uniquely formed human being.

Less snow and ice are the result of global warming.  So are more snow and ice – and colder temperatures.

Democrats have the best interests of the middle class at heart and want to cut taxes and reduce government.

Asking all voters to show an ID is exactly the same as racist Jim Crow laws.

Little boys who think they’re girls should be fed drugs to halt puberty and prepped for surgical mutilation.  Same for girls who think they’re boys.

No culture is superior to another.  America would be America if it had been founded by Buddhist monks instead of the likes of George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

Animals should have rights identical to those of humans and even be assigned lawyers.

I could go on.  But so many naked emperors are on the loose that it might make even that little boy in the story think twice before bucking the New Order.

Article originally posted on Townhall.com.

As we stand on the threshold of a new year, a phrase from Simon and Garfunkel’s song “The Boxer” sums up why America’s division into two warring worldviews seems to be widening.

“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”  That’s true for most folks, thanks to human nature.

However, we’re not on an equal playing field.  The whole thing is tilted to the left.  Progressive news and entertainment are everywhere, including airport lounges where thousands of travelers each day are afflicted with CNN’s non-stop propaganda.

If you don’t go out of your way to get some balance, you might think, for instance, that the tax cut bill signed by President Donald Trump does one thing only:  It kicks the middle class and the poor into the gutter, where they’re splashed with dirty, icy water as rich people guzzling Dom Perignon speed by in limos to celebrate at four-star restaurants.

Every day, led by the Washington Post and the New York Times, the media relentlessly portray the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as a sop to the rich and an attack on the poor and middle class, even though the poor pay no federal taxes and an estimated 80 percent of taxpayers will see immediate cuts in 2018.

The long overdue reform to reduce one of the world’s highest corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 21 percent will free up capital to expand industries, create more jobs and to compete internationally.   And eliminating the Obamacare penalty tax as of January 1, 2019, is a major step toward repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act in piecemeal fashion.

Here are some other highlights of the new law from the Tax Foundation:

—Although it eliminates the personal exemption, it increases the standard deduction to $12,000 for single filers, $18,000 for heads of household, and $24,000 for joint filers in 2018 (compared to $6,500, $9,550, and $13,000 respectively under current law).

—Retains the charitable contribution deduction, and limits the mortgage interest deduction to the first $750,000 in principal value.

—Limits the state and local tax deduction to a combined $10,000 for income, sales, and property taxes. (This will affect people the most in high-tax states run by Democrats.  More on that later).  Taxes paid or accrued in carrying on a trade or business are not limited.

—Expands the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000, while increasing the phase-out from $110,000 in current law to $400,000 for married couples. The first $1,400 would be refundable.

—Raises the exemption on the alternative minimum tax from $86,200 to $109,400 for married filers, and increases the phase-out threshold to $1 million.

You don’t hear much about these provisions because they don’t fit the media narrative.  Instead, we get a steady diet of class warfare.

USA Today, for instance, analyzed “5 household situations” as to how the tax bill would affect them. One of them, as related by the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel, “included a childless single renter earning $1 million a year, paying $50,000 in state and local taxes, and claiming $40,000 in charitable deductions.” As Ms. Strassel notes, “this downtrodden soul would pay $1,887 more in taxes.” Oh, the horror.

Some media outlets are floating the theory that the new tax law is so unfair that Democrats now have a good chance to take back the U.S House and perhaps even the U.S. Senate this November despite the roaring economy.

Before they book too many dance floors, though, Democrats might be reminded that Alabama’s recent election of a Democratic senator was a unique case, and that they’re defending 25 U.S. Senate seats, including several in “red” states — Indiana, North Dakota, West Virginia, Missouri and Montana – that Mr. Trump carried by 19 percent or more. Republicans have to defend only eight U.S. Senate seats.

Perhaps the Dems’ hope lies in a mass migration from high-tax, “blue” states whose residents will no longer be able to deduct all state and local taxes on their federal returns. Formerly rock-solid conservative New Hampshire recently went purple, as thousands of liberals from Massachusetts moved north to escape the consequences of their own party’s policies.  One would have hoped that they would think twice about fouling their new nest, but, no.  They’re trying their darndest to turn the Granite State into a replica of their former state or socialist Vermont.

Up in that neck of the woods, the Boston Globe and its former owner, the New York Times, are liberals’ version of the Bible.  Plus National Public Radio and PBS.  So it’s not surprising that even the many folks there who will benefit from the new tax law consider themselves victims.

A little retooling of the first referenced phrase might be in order:  “The media tell you what they want you to hear, and disregard the rest.”

This article was originally published at Townhall.com