Aly Raisman, former Olympic gymnast and one of the many victims of serial abuser Larry Nassar, offered this troubling defense of her appearance the in Sports Illustrated (SI) soft-core porn “swimsuit” issue wearing nothing but dumb slogans written on her body:

Women do not have to be modest to be respected–Live for you!… The time when women are taught to be ashamed of their bodies is OVER.

She’s right. Women don’t “have to be modest to be respected.” We should respect humans because they’re human. But not all behavioral choices should be respected. Choosing to be immodest—like appearing nude in a men’s magazine—is a choice that ought not be respected.

I’m not quite sure what Raisman means in tacking on the words “Live for you” to her first statement. I guess she lives to be immodest.

Modesty is not synonymous with shame. Modesty in this context means “regard for decency of behavior or dress.” Shame refers to “the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper etc.”

Modesty is a virtue to be cultivated, and women should feel shame over stripping for SI. (Men too should feel shame for stripping, but we’re discussing female SI strippers.)

I’m not sure who Raisman thinks is teaching women to be ashamed of their bodies, but I’ll tell you who I think is: advertisers, the modeling industry, women’s magazines, pornography, and the soft-core porn issue of Sports Illustrated—all of which depict images of a very narrow segment of the female population. They depict young, beautiful, well-proportioned women with dewy, flawless skin—you know, like Aly Raisman.

Raisman and other strippers shouldn’t feel ashamed of their bodies. They should feel ashamed of choosing to expose their bodies to the public for the sexual pleasure of strangers.

Journalist Britt Henry offered this tepid criticism of the SI stripper issue:

Why does a woman have to pose nude to feel “empowered”? Isn’t it more empowering to keep your clothes on, go into an office or classroom like everyone else and excel? 

In response to Henry, former pro-golfer Paige Spiranac defended stripping for SI:

Different women feel empowered in different ways and it’s not right to tell someone what they can and cannot do.

Didn’t Spiranac just tell Henry what she ought not do? What if Henry feels empowered by criticizing stripping?

And what about women who feel empowered by starving or cutting themselves? What about women who feel empowered by being naked at public pools? What about women who feel empowered by their sexual relationship with their brothers or fathers?

(BTW, Henry did not tell anyone what they “can and cannot do.” She asked questions that implied stripping isn’t a good thing to do.)

What SI strippers are saying is that there should be no moral evaluation of any action they autonomously choose. No questions asked about whether stripping is a moral act or not. No questions about whether stripping contributes to the objectification of women or encourages male lust. No questions about whether strippers serve as good role models for young girls. No questions about whether stripping for SI contributes to women feeling ashamed of their average, imperfect bodies. Nope, all that’s permitted in response to purportedly autonomous choices is affirmation.

Empowerment seems to mean nothing more than “I feel good.” These strippers probably don’t want anyone to ask why they feel good about exposing their bodies to strangers who use those images to engage in onanistic activity. And they surely don’t want anyone to suggest it’s shameful to facilitate the poisoning of the minds and hearts of boys and men.

As porn of the soft- and hard-core varieties proliferates, young men who began being exposed to porn starting in middle school are finding themselves unable to perform sexually with real women, and marriages are being destroyed. The “autonomous” choices of “empowered” women to be immodest for money play a part in this mess. And for that, they should feel shame.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Sports-Illustrated-Strippers.mp3

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!

From the National Center on Sexual Exploitation

No corporation should profit from or facilitate sexual exploitation. Unfortunately, many well-established brands, companies, and organizations in America do just that. Since 2013, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation has published an annual Dirty Dozen List to name and shame the mainstream players in America that perpetuate sexual exploitation—whether that be through pornography, prostitution, sexual objectification, sexual violence and/or sex trafficking.

The Dirty Dozen List is an activism tool that gives back power to individuals who want a voice in the culture. People can participate by taking easy online actions, from sending emails to sharing social media messages.

The Dirty Dozen List has a track record of uniting thousands of individual actions and targeting them to create monumental changes, such as policy improvements at Google, Hilton Worldwide, Verizon, Walmart, and the Department of Defense.

Amazon: Amazon.com, the world’s largest online retailer, facilitates the sale of materials that sexualize children and normalize the dehumanization and sexual commodification of women. Such products include eroticized child nudity photography books, sex dolls (many with childlike features,) and books with “how to” instructions for sex trafficking. Amazon Prime also produces original content that normalizes gratuitous sexual violence against women and softcore pornography as mainstream entertainment.

Backpage.com: Backpage.com brings the seedy street corners of America’s red-light districts to home computers. As a classified advertising website known as “the hub” for prostitution advertising, Backpage.com serves as a virtual auction block where sex buyers can shop for human beings for sex from the privacy of their home, office, hotel room, or cell phone. Many of those bought and sold via the website are sexually trafficked women and children. The website facilitates this activity by allegedly editing ads to conceal the illegality of underlying criminal activity and remains immune from prosecution due to the Communications Decency Act Section 230.

Comcast: Comcast distributes and profits from sexual exploitation. One way it does this is by providing access to hardcore pornography via its Xfinity television packages. In 2017, Comcast informed NCOSE that it would take measures to hide and deceptively sanitize film descriptions and titles – but Comcast is still defending and profiting off of teen, incest, and racist-themed pornography.

EBSCO: EBSCO Information Services offers online library resources to public and private schools (K-12), public libraries, and more. In its advertising for schools, it promises “fast access to curriculum-appropriate content.” However, its databases provide easy access to hardcore pornography sites and extremely graphic sexual content. In 2017, EBSCO removed some content from their K-12 databases, however there remains an incredible amount of easily accessible sexually explicit material bypassing school filters mixed in with educational material.

HBO: Home Box Office Inc. (HBO) is a premium cable and satellite television network owned by Time Warner. Since the early 2000s HBO has produced a string of original programs that incorporate graphic sex scenes. Examples include G String Divas, CatHouse: The Series,and Hung. Graphic depictions of sex, rape, and brutal sexual violence are also commonplace in The Deuce, Game of Thronesand Westworld. HBO has reached a new low as it turns torture porn into popular entertainment.

iBooks: Apple’s iBooks app is automatically pre-downloaded on most iPhones as an easy way to access audio and written books while mobile. However, this app is filled with erotic literature that supports rape myths, normalizes adult-with-teen-themed and incest-themed exploitation, and reinforces degrading racially charged sexual stereotypes. Even innocent searches auto-populate graphic suggestions. Many stories feature “barely legal,” student-teacher, and “babysitter” sex, “forced sex” (aka rape,) or submission of minority races like Black, Asian, and Indian to white males.

The Poster Boys of #MeToo: This year, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation broke with its tradition of placing only mainstream companies or organizations on the Dirty Dozen List, to include four “Poster Boys” of the #MeToo culture of sexual assault and harassment: Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Woody Allen, and James Franco. These four men have used their power to both harass and abuse others, in addition to shaping America’s cultural acceptance of sexual exploitation through their professions.

ROKU: Roku, a leading media streaming company, provides its users with the ability to stream television programs, movies, music, and more, on their personal devices. Roku also facilitates access to hardcore pornography channels through hundreds of private and hidden channels. This stands in sharp contrast to the policies of other streaming device industry leaders such as Apple TV or Amazon’s Fire TV.

Snap Inc.: Arguably the most popular smartphone app used by Millennials and teens, Snapchat is frequently used for sexting and sharing child sexual abuse images (i.e. child pornography). Snapchat’s “Stories” is a feature which includes public content from media outlets like Cosmopolitan, frequently containing sexually graphic material that cannot be easily blocked by users. Additionally, its “SnapCash” feature enables users to easily monetize and profit from the exchange of sexual content.

Steam: Steam is the Walmart of online videogame distribution, with over 35 million users who are minors. Steam offers categories of “nudity” and “sexual content” video games, which include over 780 video games with explicit content, featuring only mild warnings. These games, for example House Party, Men of Yoshiwara: Ohgiya, Super Star, Porno Studio Tycoon and more, promote the dangerous misconception that sexually exploiting others is harmless and fun.

Twitter: Twitter is a major source of breaking news and boasts more than 300 million monthly, active users. It also serves as a major platform to disseminate hardcore pornography and facilitate prostitution. While the platform removed the ability to search for these terms directly in video or picture tabs, there are still countless pornographic accounts which often serve as advertisements for pornography websites or online prostitution.

YouTube: In late 2017, Google’s YouTube came under scrutiny for hosting disturbing videos that targeted children, often with children’s characters put in sexually charged or violent situations, and searches in the YouTube search bar would autocomplete with suggestions for child sex-themed videos. YouTube states that it removed many of these channels and the autocomplete suggestions, but YouTube is failing to proactively monitor or restrict sexually graphic content and it forces users to go through a rigorous process, which includes watching the material, if they want to report the content for removal.

Originally published at EndSexualExploitation.org.

Written by Dr. Paul Kengor

Last Saturday I dropped off my two oldest sons and their friend at the theatre. I planned to kill a couple of hours at the bookstore, on my laptop, at a coffee shop, whatever. When I got out of the car the balmy two-degree temperature in Pittsburgh prompted second thoughts. Instead, I strolled into the theater complex, looked around, and saw a poster for “Darkest Hour.” I vaguely knew it was a movie about Winston Churchill. I bought a ticket and went in.

I was hooked from the opening scene: a grim, dank, colorless House of Commons, nothing like the fun and festive place you see when you click on C-SPAN on Sunday night to watch “Question Time” with the prime minister. This was interrogation time with the prime minister, with Neville Chamberlain in the dock on May 9, 1940, while Labour Party opposition leader, Clement Attlee, barked at him for his failed accommodation of Adolph Hitler.

Attlee, of course, would one day go on to nationalize everything his Fabian socialists could get their covetous government hands on, and Churchill in this film nicely refers to him as “that wolf in sheep’s clothing, Attlee.” At this moment, however, Attlee was spot-on. Chamberlain had fully earned the evisceration.

It’s after this opening that we see Winston Churchill for the first time—instantly riveting because of the incredible performance by the leading man. I had walked into this movie cold (literally), with no clue of the actors, the writer, the directors, the producers. Not until the credits did I find out who played Churchill. It was Gary Oldman. I would have never guessed it. Oldman was flatly amazing.

There are plenty such kudos to go around for this film. Among the characters and those who played them: Churchill’s wife (Kristin Scott Thomas), Anthony Eden (Samuel West), Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup), Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane), King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn), and the young woman (Lily James) who had the lead female role as Churchill’s secretary/typist. The writer was Anthony McCarten, whose script was superb.

McCarten and director Joe Wright delivered so many fine scenes, from the tragedy at Calais to the capitulation of France. As to the latter, in one painful exchange Churchill asks French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud incredulously, “Tell me how you plan to counterattack.” To Churchill’s horror, the leader of France responds: “There is no plan.” Reynaud and one of his lackeys sniff at the Brits for being so “delusional.” Churchill is less delusional than aghast. “France must be saved!” he insists. That, unfortunately, was not the French plan.

“Darkest Hour” depicts all of this so beautifully and so, well, visually, which history books and news reels cannot or could not do.

But above all, the takeaway from this film—and from the Churchill experience—is an enduring historical-moral lesson: you cannot negotiate a just peace with a brutal aggressor. Savages are not appeased. This is poignantly captured when Churchill snaps at Viscount Halifax and Neville Chamberlain: “You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in his mouth!”

What makes that moment and this overall film so valuable is the paramount fact that Churchill is shouting at Halifax and at Chamberlain, both Conservatives, both looking to negotiate “peace in our time” with Hitler, and neither of which had quietly disappeared when Churchill took the helm on May 10, 1940. We tend to have a nice, tidy, black-and-white view of what happened in Britain when Chamberlain stepped aside. We assume that Chamberlain vanished and then Churchill vanquished; there was hence an immediate change in tone, policy, direction, vision.

This film, however, shows what really occurred, namely: Chamberlain and Halifax became part of Churchill’s official War Cabinet and remained tacit leaders of the Conservative Party, while the disrespected Churchill was merely a compromise prime minister leading a precarious coalition government in which the Labour Party accepted him more than his own Conservative Party had. Thus, Churchill still had to deal with intense pressure to settle with Hitler, as Chamberlain and Halifax pushed him relentlessly to “negotiate terms” with the Nazis—with Benito Mussolini their recommended splendid mediator. It was a lousy situation for Churchill, who faced a possible vote of no confidence if he couldn’t keep Chamberlain and Halifax on the reservation.

That ugly internal battle, which is the core of the movie, went on for an extraordinarily decisive month of May 1940, when Churchill soul-searched, struggled, lost sleep, drank, nearly wobbled, and Britain could have caved. Ultimately, Britain stood strong because Churchill—in his courage—refused to stick his head near the mouth of the tiger. Churchill said “Never!” to the Fuhrer. That course both inspired his people and had been inspired by his people.

And the rest is history.

Churchill’s “Darkest Hour” was, in truth, a series of dark hours that lasted two or three weeks in May 1940, when Western civilization hung in the balance. He was severely tested. He responded with bouts of confidence and doubt, turmoil and inspiration, cigars and (lots of) alcohol—as Oldman shows so vividly. Ultimately, mercifully, he persevered. This powerful film portrays what he was up against and how he prevailed—a rousing lesson from the time and for the ages.

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His latest book (April 2017) is A Pope and a President: John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Extraordinary Untold Story of the 20th Century. He is also the author of 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative. His other books include The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

Last year brought a flurry of news reports about how Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have been actively working to suppress the conservative message. Their actions are not new — all the big four tech/social media giants are run by Leftists. Some speculate that the election of Donald Trump increased their motivation to step up their efforts.

The arguments in the public square and in the courts about the First Amendment, free speech, and religious liberty are common — and now another discussion is gaining momentum — this one is about viewpoint discrimination.

The government is not permitted to engage in it, nor are taxpayer funded entities. To what degree, however, are private companies allowed to do so because of public accommodation laws?

The “literature” on the topic, as they say, is growing. As the courts and commentators hash it out, it is worth excerpting from a must-read article last November by Ben Weingarten at The Federalist. Here is how it opens:

PragerU Sues YouTube For Discriminating Against Conservative Videos

PragerU’s suit against Google and YouTube alleging unlawful censorship and free speech discrimination has the potential to be groundbreaking.

Those blackballed from social media platforms for sharing views dissenting from prevailing progressive Silicon Valley orthodoxy have to date had little recourse against the tech speech police. That is why PragerU’s newly filed suit against Google and Google-owned YouTube alleging unlawful censorship and free speech discrimination based on the educational video purveyor’s conservative political viewpoint has the potential to be groundbreaking.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in California, details upwards of 50 PragerU educational videos that YouTube has, in PragerU’s view, unjustifiably slapped with “restricted mode” or “demonetization” filters, violating its First Amendment right to free speech. These filters limit or otherwise prevent viewers, based on characteristics like age, from consuming content deemed “inappropriate.”

Weingarten goes on to address whether basic conservative ideas can be called “inappropriate.” YouTube told PragerU that it “can’t share more details about our review process, as doing so could benefit channels that do not play by the rules (those who game the system).”

Weingarten writes:

Indeed, PragerU’s suit confirms what conservatives have recognized for some time: the rules that govern banning users, taking down content, or otherwise disadvantaging posts and tweets on the basis of the sharer’s ideology or the message’s bent have been capriciously written and arguably even more capriciously applied.

The section of Weingarten’s article regarding “Free Speech Rights Can Apply in Private Contexts” is important and informative:

PragerU’s argument rests on the idea that modern social media behemoths constitute the digital equivalent of today’s public square. Thus, their users must be provided the same free speech protections in cyberspace as in the town green.

The suit reads in part:

The United States Supreme Court…recognized more than a half-century ago that the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution can apply even on privately owned property. One of the most important places to exchange and express views is cyberspace, particularly social media, where users engage in a wide array of protected First Amendment activity on any number of diverse topics.

Where, as in the case of Google/YouTube, a private party operates as one of the largest internet forums for speech and expression in the history of the world and such forum is accessible to and freely used by the public in general, there is nothing to distinguish it from any other forum except the fact that title to the property on which the forum exists belongs to a private corporation. As the highest court in the nation has made clear, ‘[t]he more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.’

“Time will tell what the courts make of this argument,” Weingarten writes.

Later in the article he says:

To the degree to which there is still a relatively free market in technology, there are plenty of measures we can take to challenge Silicon Valley’s speech muzzles. Unlike the Left, which knows how to organize and strategically execute its political campaigns, to date conservatives have not committed to such a concerted effort to protect free speech in cyberspace. We should. These efforts would have to encompass extensive, highly coordinated and unceasing.

Click here to read the bullet points that follow. They provide examples of what I’ve been writing for years about our side’s failure in the information war. And that gets back to the question asked in the title of this article: what is the conservative movement’s answer to the big four social media outlets?

Weingarten applauds PragerU’s efforts, but notes that they are “by no means a sufficient and sure safeguard of our rights.” Putting our hopes in the decision of judges, some of whom (may I say it?) are unmoored from reality and the U.S. Constitution, is not a winning strategy.

Preserving free speech, like all of our cherished freedoms,” Weingarten writes, “requires constant vigilance and persistent defense.”

What does that mean? It can’t mean more of the same when it comes to the marketing and messaging efforts on the part of conservatives. One way to accelerate that process would be for big conservative donors to learn about the groups such as Illinois Family Institute and Illinois Family Action that are willing to innovate, fight and finally win the information war.

If you wish to read many more examples about how the “big four” treat conservatives, you can scan through these links: Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube.

IFI Worldview Conference Feb. 10th

We are excited about our annual Worldview Conference featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet on Sat., Feb. 10, 2017 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!

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-

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

Legal affairs columnist at The Daily Beast, Jay Michaelson, has offered the dumbest idea yet to solve the problem of homosexual couples trying to force Christians to provide goods and services for their faux-weddings.

Michaelson, who writes on “law, religion, and sexuality,” is a graduate of Columbia University and Yale Law School, which provides clear evidence that intelligence and prestigious educations provide no bulwark against foolishness.

Michaelson is also an “affiliated assistant professor at Chicago Theological Seminary,” a “teacher of meditation in a Theravadan Buddhist lineage,” and openly homosexual with a special interest in “queer theology.”

Focusing on the case of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker whose case before the U.S. Supreme Court starts next week, Michaelson proposed this:

All Masterpiece Cakeshop has to do is state that they only provide wedding cakes for weddings that take place at certain churches (and, if they like, synagogues and mosques). Don’t turn people away based on their identities, or the type of wedding they’re conducting. Turn them away based on the place where they are getting married…. That leaves the discrimination up to the religious institution, and churches are allowed to discriminate. They can refuse to host same-sex weddings, interfaith weddings, interracial weddings – whatever. And almost everyone agrees that they should be allowed to do so. Whatever else it means, the First Amendment definitely covers religious institutions’ rights to decide how to practice their religion.

That’s a doozy of a “solution.”

First, a few thoughts.

Neither Jack Phillips, nor florist Barronelle Stutzman, nor baker Melissa Klein, nor calligrapher Joanna Duka, nor photographer Elaine Huguenin, nor Bed & Breakfast owner Jim Walder “turned people away based on their identities.” All of these defendants in unjust lawsuits brought by petulant, intolerant homosexual oppressors served homosexuals and provided products to homosexuals—an inconvenient fact that Michaelson omitted. Phillips was willing to sell the homosexuals who are suing him a pre-made cake for their wedding or any other baked goods. Stutzman had sold flowers for years to the homosexual who has sued her, knowing full well his “sexual orientation.”

For the umpteenth time, what these Christians are unwilling to do is provide a service or product for a type of event that the God they serve abhors. For theologically orthodox Christians, marriage is first and foremost a picture of Christ and the church. The union of Christ the bridegroom and his bride, the church, is a union of two different and complementary entities. They are different in both nature and role. Pretending that the union of two people of the same sex can be a marriage is heresy. In theological terms, such a belief would necessarily mean that there is no difference in nature or role between Christ and his church.

And theologically orthodox Christians throughout the history of the church and today understand that God detests homosexual activity even as he loves those who reject Him and his Word. What a grievous injustice it is for the government to compel Christians to serve, participate in, or provide products for an event that celebrates a union that God detests.

Christians also recognize that true marriage—that is the union of one man and one woman—also serves public and secular purposes. It serves children who have an intrinsic right to know and be raised by both a mother and father–preferably their own biological parents.  Further, the needs of children are best served when they are raised by a mother and father. In serving the needs and rights of children, true marriage also serves society.

Michaelson offered this odd statement: “the First Amendment definitely covers religious institutions’ rights to decide how to practice their religion.”

Evidently Michaelson isn’t “woke” to the fact that the First Amendment definitely covers religious individual’s right to decide how to exercise their religion.

Michaelson denies that his solution of providing goods and services only for weddings held in certain churches constitutes religious discrimination:

[S]ince the bakery (or photographer, or florist) is limiting their services to certain physical venues, rather than discriminating against individual customers, the practice is what lawyers call “facially neutral.” If you’re getting married at venue A, B, or C, we can provide a cake for you. Period. You can be of whatever religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity that the venue allows; that’s up to the venues. All the bakery cares about is where the wedding is happening.

None of the Christians being sued is discriminating against individuals. They’re making distinctions between types of events: a union between two people of the same sex is as different from the union of two people of different sexes as a man is from a woman—which homosexuals and “trans” cultists tell us are very different, indeed. So, why is discriminating between venues “facially neutral,” while discriminating between types of events is unjustly discriminatory?

So, now for some questions that may help further illuminate just how asinine Michaelson’s proposed solution is:

1.)  What if a theologically orthodox Christian couple is having their wedding in a home, on the beach, on a mountain top, at an inn, in a hotel, or some other venue? Why should Jack Phillips be precluded from providing a wedding cake for such a wedding?

2.)  What if a denomination or church is in the midst of a schism, with some members upholding orthodoxy and some heresy? And what if a theologically orthodox couple in this church want a cake from the baker? Shouldn’t Phillips be free to provide a cake for this type of event that doesn’t violate his religious convictions?

3.)  What if Phillips wants to serve any sexually complementary couples because of his belief that marriage—which has an ontology—is good for all humans and good for society? Shouldn’t he have the right to serve all such couples regardless of their religion or absence of religion?

Jack Phillips did not refuse to serve homosexuals. He served them many times. He refused to make a type of product he had never made for a type of event he had never served: He declined to make an anti-wedding cake for an anti-wedding.

Marriage has a nature. It is something. Societies historically have recognized and regulated it, but they did not create it out of whole cloth. Marriage has a nature central to which is sexual differentiation and without which a union is not and cannot, in reality, be a marriage. A same-sex union is the antithesis of a marriage. It is an anti-marriage. I bet if a homosexual couple were to ask Phillips to make a birthday cake for the birthday of one of their mothers, he would do it. This illustrates that Phillips’ refusal to make an anti-wedding cake does not constitute discrimination against persons based on their “sexual orientation” but, rather, constitutes discriminating among types of events based on his religious beliefs. To paraphrase Michaelson, Phillips doesn’t care about the “sexual orientation” of his customers. All he cares about is the type of event that he’s being asked to serve.

I’ll speculate again. I bet if a man who identifies as homosexual were to choose to marry a woman—perhaps because he wants a traditional family life—Phillips would bake a wedding cake for the reception. Conversely, if two heterosexual women were to choose to marry—perhaps for some pragmatic fiscal reasons—Phillips would likely refuse to make a wedding cake. Both hypotheticals illustrate that Phillips’ refusal to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple has nothing to do with their “sexual orientation.” It is the type of event to which he objects.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Asinine-Idea-to-Protect-Christian-Vendors-From-Lawsuits.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

The evidence against the far Left-wing agenda of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is overwhelmingly plain. Yet, this sinister agenda is ignored by many corporations, politicians, academics and the so-called “news” media. With their assistance, the SPLC regularly maligns conservative voices, especially Christian organizations that promote traditional sexual morality.  Illinois Family Institute has been targeted by the SPLC since 2008.

As I point out in the video interview below, the SPLC’s designation of IFI as a hate group is laughable and an outright lie. Yet it continues to be used by partisan activists.

To  put it plainly: the SPLC is a far Left organization of liberal lawyers who raise millions of dollars annually by resorting to name calling. In recent years, their primary goal has been to label organizations that affirm theologically orthodox views of homosexuality (and now gender dysphoria) as “hate groups” in order to advance the radical LGBTQIA (more to come) agenda.

If the Left were honest, they wouldn’t hesitate to identify SPLC’s bigotry against groups that hold to 2000 plus years of a traditional Christian understanding of God’s design for sex.  But they are not honest.

Moreover, the Left isn’t content with redefining sexual morality and the institution of marriage. They are desperately trying to redefine what it means to be a Christ-follower. This is nothing new, of course. There have always been false teachers who sought to add to the Word of God, create their own standards of righteousness, and to diminish God’s view of sin (1 John 5:17) – as merely minor problems with which we that we all deal (Rom: 1:32). Think “white lies.”

Those who mix humanism with a dollop of Christian flavor want to claim the title of “Christianity” but fail to see that they supplant the Gospel truth with feckless human thinking and flawed understanding of compassion. Scripture isn’t silent on this: Isaiah 55:8; Proverbs 3:5-7; Jeremiah 17:9; and Matthew 15:19.

The Christian faith is defined by the Word of God. Once it is mixed with other human philosophies, it ceases being “Christian.”

It’s time for conservatives to fight back!

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to sign the petition now asking corporations to stop funding SPLC.

The Left is working overtime to silence and/or marginalize conservative voices in America
The time to support IFI is now!

Look no further than Illinois State University (ISU) for evidence of the degradation of public education. In addition to hosting an annual drag queen fundraiser in the Bone Student Center, Illinois State University owns a fake news organization: WGLT. The call letters come from the school’s increasingly ill-fitting motto: “Gladly we learn and teach.”

WGLT, a public radio station and, therefore, an affiliate of National Public Radio (NPR), came to Illinois Family Institute’s (IFI) attention when a short article about IFI’s robo-calls warning Illinoisans about the campaign to resurrect the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) decades after its expiration date began circulating on social media. The article, written by “progressive” Baylee Steelman, is titled “Hate Group Lobbies Against ERA With B-N Robocalls” (B-N refers to Bloomington-Normal).

It should be clear from the title that the article is an editorial hit-piece on IFI masquerading as a news story about the ERA—thus a fake “news” story—but for those who need proof, here is Steelman’s “news” story:

The revival of a decades dormant campaign to pass the Equal Rights Amendment is drawing an opposition campaign from what some call a hate group.

The Illinois Family Institute has been placing robocalls to Bloomington-Normal area residents asking them to write state lawmakers Dan Brady and Jason Barickman.

“Don’t be fooled: The Equal Rights Amendment is not about equal pay for equal work. This radical anti-woman amendment will require taxpayers to fund more abortions. It will require young women to register for the military draft. It will increase car insurance premiums for women. The ERA will force women to use coed restrooms and locker rooms. It will impact child support as well as Social Security benefits for widows. The Equal Rights Amendment is all war on women,” said one recording.

Those claims are false.

The Southern Poverty Law Center lists the Illinois Family Institute as a hate group usually focusing on anti-LGBTQ issues. The SPLC says the IFI has identified headquarters in Peoria and Carol Stream.

Supporters of the ERA revival campaign are also urging their members to call lawmakers to counter the IFI robocall.

Two more states need to ratify the amendment before it could take effect.

Steelman provides no evidence for her assertion that IFI’s claims are false. She did not cite another organization as the source of the assertion that IFI’s “claims are false.” She never contacted IFI to query us about our claims or to get a statement about them. She merely inserted her opinion that the claims are false, thereby implying that her opinion is settled, inarguable fact.

Steelman stated that the ERA has been long “dormant,” but failed to include the fact that the final deadline for the passage of the ERA was 1982.

While maligning IFI with the false label assigned to us by the ethically impoverished Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Steelman never bothers to mention that the SPLC and its founder Morris Dees have been widely criticized by conservatives, “progressives,” and moderates, and is no longer listed as a resource in FBI materials. In other words, Steelman repeatedly cited a disreputable organization as her only source.

As a result of this poorly written, fake “news story,” IFI sent this email to WGLT:

Dear WGLT,

Your article titled “Hate Group Lobbies Against ERA With B-N Robocalls,” which is being promoted on social media, demonstrates why so many Americans have a dim view of the press.

We are disappointed to see WGLT and National Public Radio blindly repeating the ad hominem assault by the left-wing SPLC that falsely identifies Illinois Family Institute (IFI) as a “hate group.”

The article title suggests that the “hate group” designation represents an unassailable and objective fact, whereas the designation is given to us by a dubious organization widely criticized by even progressives.

In a brief news story ostensibly about the ERA, student reporter Baylee Steelman spent an inordinate amount of time referencing the SPLC and its false characterization of IFI without once mentioning that, for example, the FBI has removed the SPLC from its resources list.

Following her transcription of our robo-call, Ms. Steelman asserts without evidence that our claims “are false.” Without evidence, she inserted as fact her editorial opinion in a news story.

Even as she reported as fact that IFI is a hate group, Ms. Steelman failed to contact IFI for a statement or a response to this story. We’d be happy to defend our position on this important public debate on the ERA.

Shouldn’t a reporter strive for accuracy and objectivity in reporting stories on controversial cultural issues?

Perhaps Steelman should spend some time on the American Press Institute website, which warns against some of the journalistic failings she demonstrates:

This neutral voice, without a discipline of verification, creates a veneer covering something hollow. Journalists who select sources to express what is really their own point of view, and then use the neutral voice to make it seem objective, are engaged in a form of deception. This damages the credibility of the craft by making it seem unprincipled, dishonest, and biased.

Citing David Protess, the American Press Institute recommends the following:

Assume nothing is true. Go directly to the source. Don’t rely on just the authorities or officials. Touch all bases. Be systematic.

Did Ms. Steelman do those things?

IFI received this response from news director Charlie Schlenker that also went to several WGLT staffers:

We will not be responding to this hate group.

Charlie

Can readers expect fair reporting from a purported news station whose director responds like this?

Some astute readers may have noticed that the online version of the WGLT article no longer attributes it to Baylee Steelman (IFI has the original). The byline now says Charlie Schlenker wrote the article. Curiouser and curiouser.

Taxpayers might wonder, exactly what is being learned, who is teaching, and who is making administrative decisions at ISU. We already know who’s making decisions at WGLT: bigoted Charlie Schlenker.

Remember friends, we the people fund this radio station.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or fax to the WGLT “news” department, urging them to report matters of public policy fairly and objectively. Please also ask them to cease using the SPLC’s fake and slanderous attack on IFI and other theologically orthodox Christian organizations that express views of sexuality with which “progressives” disagree.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/ISUs-Fake-News-Station-WGLT-Calls-IFI-Hate-Group.mp3

The Left is working overtime to silence and/or marginalize conservative voices in America
The time to support IFI is now!

Written by Hans von Spakovsky

If you have no idea what happened at the second meeting of President Donald Trump’s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in New Hampshire on Sept. 12, I’m not surprised.

Though a horde of reporters attended the meeting, almost all of the media stories that emerged from it simply repeated the progressive left’s mantra that the commission is a “sham.”

Almost no one covered the substantive and very concerning testimony of 10 expert witnesses on the problems that exist in our voter registration and election system.

The witnesses included academics, election lawyers, state election officials, data analysts, software experts, and computer scientists.

The existing and potential problems they exposed would give any American with any common sense and any concern for our democratic process cause for alarm.

The first panel included Andrew Smith of the University of New Hampshire, Kimball Brace of Election Data Services Inc., and John Lott. They testified about historical election turnout statistics and the effects of election integrity issues on voter confidence.

Lott also testified that his statistical analyses show that contrary to the narrative myth pushed by some, voter ID does not depress voter turnout. In fact, there is some evidence that it may increase turnout because it increases public confidence in elections.

In a second panel, Donald Palmer, the former chief election official in two states—Florida and Virginia—testified about the problems that exist in state voter registration systems.

He made a series of recommendations to improve the accuracy of voter rolls, including working toward “interoperability” of state voter lists so that states “can identify and remove duplicate registration of citizens who are registered to vote in more than one state.”

Robert Popper, a former Justice Department lawyer now with Judicial Watch, testified about the failure of the Justice Department to enforce the provisions of the National Voter Registration Act that require states to maintain the accuracy of their voter lists.

He said there has been a “pervasive failure by state and county officials” to comply with the National Voter Registration Act, and complained about the under-enforcement of state laws against voter fraud.

Ken Block of Simpatico Software Systems gave a stunning report on the comparison that his company did of voter registration and voter history data from 21 states. He discussed how difficult and expensive it was to get voter data from many states—data that is supposed to be freely available to the public.

According to Block, “the variability in access, quality, cost, and data provided impedes the ability to examine voter activity between states.”

Yet using an extremely conservative matching formula that included name, birthdate, and Social Security number, Block found approximately 8,500 voters who voted in two different states in the November 2016 election, including 200 couples who voted illegally together. He estimated that “there would be 40,000 duplicate votes if data from every state were available.”

Of those duplicate voters, 2,200 cast a ballot in Florida—four times George W. Bush’s margin of victory in 2000. His analysis “indicates a high likelihood [of] voter fraud” and that there is “likely much more to be found.”

As a member of the commission, I testified about The Heritage Foundation’s election fraud database. That non-comprehensive database has 1,071 examples of proven incidents of fraud ranging from one illegal vote to hundreds. It includes 938 criminal convictions, 43 civil penalties, and miscellaneous other cases.

Heritage is about to add another 19 cases to the database. This is likely just the tip of the iceberg, since many cases are never prosecuted and there is no central source for information on election fraud.

The commission also heard about a report published by Shawn Jasper, the Republican speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. That report stated that over 6,500 individuals in 2016 used an out-of-state driver’s license to take advantage of New Hampshire’s same-day registration law to register and vote on Election Day.

Despite a law that requires an individual with an out-of-state license to obtain a New Hampshire license within 60 days of establishing residency in the state, only 15.5 percent have done so.

Many have tried to explain this away be saying those voters must all have been college students living in New Hampshire. Perhaps that is true.

But it may also be true that voters from Massachusetts and other surrounding states decided to take advantage of New Hampshire’s law to cross the border and vote in a presidential and Senate race, which were decided by only 3,000 and 1,000 voters, respectively.

Of course, we won’t know the truth of what happened unless we do what should be done, and what the commission’s critics don’t want to be done: investigate these cases.

Finally, the commission heard from three computer experts—Andrew Appel of Princeton University, Ronald Rivest of MIT, and Harri Hursti of Nordic Innovation Labs. Their testimony about the ability of hackers to get into electronic voting equipment and just about every other device that uses the internet (and even those that don’t) was chilling.

As Appel stated, our challenge is to ensure that when voters go to the polls, they can “trust that their votes will be recorded accurately, counted accurately, and aggregated accurately.” He made a series of “technological and organization” recommendations for achieving that objective.

All in all, the Sept. 12 meeting, which was hosted by Bill Gardner, New Hampshire’s longtime Democratic secretary of state, was both informative and comprehensive. But anyone who didn’t attend would never know that based on the skimpy and biased coverage it received in the media.

The hearing is evidence of the good work the commission is already doing in bringing to light the problems we face in ensuring the integrity of our election process.

This article was originally posted at The Daily Signal.

If signed into law by Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, HB 40, which passed in both the Illinois House and Senate, will force taxpayers to subsidize abortions for women on Medicaid and for women covered by state employee health insurance.

Feticidal maniacs in Illinois—including lawmakers—are desperate to have Rauner sign this bill into law. They reason that since abortion is legal, the public should subsidize it. Leftists believe all Illinois taxpayers should pay for poor women’s and state employees’ choices to have their unborn children killed. Ironically, while Leftists command that men never express an opinion on abortion, Leftists also say male taxpayers should fund abortion. Word to Leftists:

1.) Those tiny humans growing inside women get half their DNA from men.

2.) The issue of whether the product of conception between two humans is a human with rights is a human rights issue—not exclusively a women’s issue.

3.) There are no criteria that Leftists can manufacture to defend the right of some humans to snuff out the lives of other humans that apply only to incipient human lives. Whether those criteria are intrinsic or extrinsic to humans in the womb, they all can be applied to humans who escaped the torture chamber that the womb has become. Intrinsic criteria such as immature development, dependency status, lack of sentience, or lack of perfection apply to humans outside the womb as well. Extrinsic criteria such as being considered a financial or emotional burden also apply to humans outside the womb.

4.) According to Leftists, men can have wombs, menstruate, become pregnant, and give birth, and, therefore, abortion is a men’s issue.

5.) Using the language of “rights,” feticide-defenders are appealing to the respect Americans have for “negative rights”—also known as liberties—(e.g., the right to vote, assemble, exercise one’s religion, and speak freely), which are not accompanied by any obligation for others to subsidize them. But what feticide-defenders are really suggesting—without explicitly saying—is that women have a “positive right” (i.e., an entitlement) to abortion, which imposes a duty on others to subsidize it. Abortion, however, is not an entitlement, and society has no obligation to pay for women to get them. Neither wanting something; nor really, really wanting something; nor experiencing suffering from not obtaining this desperately desired thing means the public has an obligation to provide it.

7.) We, as a benevolent society, have created safety nets to provide for basic health care for those who are unable to provide for it themselves. No matter how many times feticide-defenders call the killing of incipient human life “health care,” it’s not. Killing human fetuses is neither health care nor reproduction. It’s death facilitation and anti-reproduction. If Leftists want to help poor women and state employees kill their offspring, they have the choice and negative right to do so.

In an editorial appearing in Crain’s Chicago Business, K. Sujata, president and CEO of the Chicago Foundation for Women (CFW), frets about the implications of an HB 40 veto. She worries about the economic interests of pregnant women, many of whom choose to have sex when they can’t afford or don’t want to provide for the needs of humans who may result from their choice to have sex:

HB40 also removes restrictions on reproductive health care coverage that put women’s economic security at risk…. In order for women and their families to achieve full economic security, all women in Illinois must be able to make the important decision of when to start or grow their family.

Do Illinoisans really have a moral obligation to provide for the “full economic security” of state employees? Do Illinoisans really have a moral obligation to pay for the destruction of the tiny family members already growing inside of poor women?

And how does killing humans—including female humans—whose lives are just beginning fulfill this core principle of the Chicago Foundation for Women:

We believe that equality is a universal human right, and we uphold respect and dignity as guiding principles in all our work.

If Leftists really believe that more developed, sentient, able-bodied, and cognitively superior humans have the right to exterminate less-developed and cognitively and physically impaired humans whose self-awareness is diminished or absent, then they are kindred spirits with Princeton University bio-unethicist Peter Singer who makes the same argument but applies it to post-natal humans as well. What possible ethical difference do a few days or few inches of birth canal make in terms of the right to kill?

Remember ten years ago when Hillary Clinton expressed her belief that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare. And by rare, I mean rare“? Northwestern University law professor Andrew Koppelman expressed the same sentiment during a forum at Northwestern Law School several years ago. When I asked why abortion should be rare if incipient human life is so devoid of personhood as to be undeserving of even minimal constitutional protection, he had no answer.

If Leftists really wanted abortion to be rare, they wouldn’t be fighting tooth and nail for the passage of HB 40, which, it is estimated, will result in an additional 15,000 abortions each year at taxpayer expense.

But no one actually believes Leftists care about whether abortion is rare or common. To them destroying human fetuses is no different from excising tumors.

Wombs should be sanctuary spaces and no-kill people shelters where all humans are safe. Governor Rauner should kill HB 40.

Take ACTION: Click Here to email Governor Bruce Rauner. Urge him to keep his pledge to veto HB 40. Also, please continue to call the governor’s public comment line every day until this is resolved: (217) 782-0244 and (312) 814-2121. 

You can also send Gov. Rauner a message via Twitter: @GovRauner

Listen to Laurie read this article in this podcast:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2Kill-HB-40-Wombs-Should-Be-Sanctuary-Spaces-and-No-Kill-Shelters.mp3

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

Leftist Chicago Tribune columnist Rex Huppke has penned a column on the recently released Nashville Statement. His article is titled “150 Evangelicals DENY love for LGBT people.” The Nashville Statement is a critically important and desperately needed document that succinctly affirms theologically orthodox positions on homosexuality, marriage, and the objective goodness and immutability of maleness and femaleness.

The Nashville Statement signatories include these Evangelical luminaries: Sam Allberry, Alistair Begg, Michael Brown,  Rosaria Butterfield, Denny Burk,  D.A. Carson, Francis Chan, Matt Chandler, Mark Dever, Kevin DeYoung, James Dobson, Ligon Duncan, John Frame, David French, Robert A. J. Gagnon, Wayne Grudem, R. Kent Hughes, John MacArthur, C. J. Mahaney, Al Mohler, Russell Moore, J. P. Moreland, Paul Nyquist, Marvin Olasky, J.I. Packer, Tony Perkins, John Piper, R. C. Sproul, Thomas Schreiner, Sam Storms, Owen Strachan, Eric Teetsel, Bruce Ware, and Christopher Yuan.

Pastor, theologian, and signatory John Piper says this about the Nashville Statement:

It speaks with forthright clarity, biblical conviction, gospel compassion, cultural relevance, and practical helpfulness. There is no effort to equivocate for the sake of wider, but muddled, acceptance.

It is built on the persuasion that the Christian Scriptures speak with clarity and authority for the good of humankind. 

Here are Huppke’s beliefs about what Scripture teaches about love—which is something quite different from what Scripture teaches about love:

The love Jesus encouraged is often distorted in ways that, in my mind, run afoul of what the man was talking about. The Nashville Statement is one of those distortions, a declaration that some love is acceptable and some love isn’t…. I don’t buy that. I’ll never buy that….

What must Huppke think of the judgmentalism of Jesus who told the adulteress to stop “loving” all those men? And what about the Apostle Paul who condemned a man for “loving” his step-mother? And then there was that judgmental Moses carrying on about those who “love” their close relatives and animals.

George Bernard Shaw famously said animals are his friends. Shouldn’t people be free to “love” their friends? I mean, love is love. Who are we to judge?

Huppke says that “declaring LGBT people and their allies sinners doesn’t strike me as a particularly kind gesture.”

The Bible declares that all people are sinners—not just “LGBT” people and their allies:

“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

“There is no fear of God before their eyes.… for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…”

 

Not very kind by the standards of post-Christian cultures.

Yes, Rex Huppke is a sinner. Ellen DeGeneres is a sinner. Mother Theresa was a sinner. Jim Elliot was a sinner. All the signatories to the Nashville Statement are sinners.  Everyone who works for Apple, Google, and the Human Rights Campaign is a sinner. And I am a sinner.

Huppke believes “it’s an offense to God to not acknowledge that all humans are different, to ignore the fact that telling LBGT people that they’re sinners, that their identity is wrong, that they’re somehow imperfect, is wildly and dangerously damaging, not to mention a sin in and of itself.”

• So, does Huppke apply that principle consistently? Does he argue that moral disapproval of, for example, adult consensual incest, zoophilia, or polyamory constitutes an offense to God?

• Are all behaviors impelled by unchosen, powerful, and persistent desires intrinsically moral simply because someone says they form the core of their identity?

• Aren’t all humans imperfect, and aren’t our imperfections revealed in part through engaging in immoral behaviors?

• Does the expression of all moral propositions with which someone may disagree damage those people?

• Has Huppke damaged theologically orthodox Christians through his indictment of beliefs that are central to their identity?

The wisest words Huppke expressed in his column are, “I’m not a theologian.” Huppke, who believes God celebrates homosexuality and biological-sex rejection, also says, “I’m not even a particularly good Catholic.” Yes, embracing apostasy/heresy makes him not a “particularly good Catholic.”

Perhaps Huppke’s most dishonest statement is this: “I’m not going to tell anyone what they should believe or what God wants or what makes someone a good Christian.” Then he goes on to tell everyone what they should believe, what God wants, and what makes someone a good Christian, and he does so from an acknowledged position of theological ignorance.

Affirming what the Bible says is never unkind, though it may be unpleasant for some to hear. Affirming as good volitional acts that God condemns may be pleasant to the “itching ears” of those who want to engage in those acts, but it is profoundly unloving.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Stop-the-Presses.mp3

Read more:

Can a Progressive’s ‘Inclusive Values’ Include Christianity? (National Review Online)

The Nashville Statement Isn’t About Trump, And A Ton of Evangelicals Support It (The Federalist)

The Progressives Who Cried Bigotry (The Week)

Why The Nashville Statement Is Needed (The American Conservative)

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.  

It does make a difference.

The Illinois Family Institute always appreciates when its work is read by more people, and we benefit when others bring attention to our work. Over the years when writing op eds I’ve made mistakes — failed to correct typos or spelling, used the wrong word such as Medicaid when the word should have been Medicare, and cited something as fact that turned out not to be true. Corrections from readers are always welcome…

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about SB 31, legislation that had been amended and shortened, and I failed to catch the updated language.

When Matt Dietrich of Politifact and the Better Government Association sent me an email bringing that error to my attention, I expressed my appreciation to him and made the correction in the article. Days later, Dietrich posted this article about my error, and while he noted my correction, he concludes that what I had written was “FALSE.”

Yes, the words I used from the earlier version of the bill was an error. My calling SB 31 a sanctuary bill was not an error.

Here is some text from an earlier version of SB 31, the “Trust Act”:

Provides that absent a judicial warrant or probable cause of criminal activity, a government official shall not make arrests in the following State-funded facilities or their adjacent grounds: State-funded schools, including licensed day care centers, pre-schools, and other early learning programs; elementary and secondary schools, and institutions of higher education…

This is language from the amended SB 31, which is now state law:

Section 15. Prohibition on enforcing federal civil immigration laws.
(a) A law enforcement agency or law enforcement official
shall not detain or continue to detain any individual solely on the basis of any immigration detainer or non-judicial immigration warrant or otherwise comply with an immigration detainer or non-judicial immigration warrant.
(b) A law enforcement agency or law enforcement official
shall not stop, arrest, search, detain, or continue to detain a person solely based on an individual’s citizenship or immigration status.

The change is merely cosmetic. The original version said a judicial warrant or probable cause of criminal activity would be required for a government official to make an arrest in several enumerated state-funded facilities. In other words, a law enforcement official could not make an arrest based solely on immigration status.

The newer version says that a law enforcement official cannot make an arrest based solely on immigration status, presumably anywhere. Thus, the newer version includes and applies to the state-funded facilities enumerated in the original bill.

Removing the language only made the bill more palatable to establishment politicians and their Leftist allies.

It is not difficult to understand the long-running dream of Leftists to import more future Democratic Party voters from other countries. Some of their most loyal supporters will be those who broke federal law to come here and were then protected by the Democratic Party.

Leftists are talented when it comes to the strategic manipulation of language. Just as centuries-old mainline Christian doctrine is now referred to as “hate,” illegal aliens are referred to as “undocumented immigrants.” Tolerance now means intolerance. The “Affordable Care Act” made health insurance unaffordable for millions of Americans. The “Trust Act” means you can trust that we don’t care if you’re here illegally.

As “blue” as Illinois is, Democratic Party leaders and their supporters know that even here you must be careful with language. And if you alter SB 31 enough, you can even deny it’s a sanctuary bill. Some people are upset that the ruse didn’t work.

The news of Rauner’s signing of SB 31 was covered by both the political left and the right, and the headlines are similar:

The Daily Herald: Rauner to sign immigration bill making Illinois a sanctuary state

Think Progress: Republican governor signs bill to limit collaboration between police and ICE

Reboot Illinois: Rauner signs ‘sanctuary state’ bill into law

Lifezette: Republican Governor Hammered for Embracing State Sanctuary Policy

ABC News: Governor signs law limiting Illinois police on immigration

Fox Illinois Decatur, IL (WRSP): Sanctuary state bill now law

It is common for legislation to evolve. Changes are made not only for material reasons but also for cosmetic reasons. In the evolution of SB 31, the larger aim of the legislation remained constant: hinder state and local law enforcement from participation in enforcing immigration laws, which is the widely accepted definition of a sanctuary city or sanctuary state.

Here was the close of Dietrich’s article:

The Illinois Family Institute said public facilities including schools, colleges and day care centers “will be made into sanctuaries by Bruce Rauner signing SB 31.”

The original version of the bill prohibited police from making arrests in such facilities, but that language was struck from the version passed by the General Assembly. The new bill contains directives that the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police says merely puts into state statute what most departments already practice.

We rate this statement False.

Actually, it is true. The only thing that changed was how the law was worded. My using text from the earlier version of the bill was an unfortunate mistake. That mistake was corrected. Perhaps more people will now understand what constitutes a sanctuary state.

Additional information:

From the National Conference of State Legislatures:

What Is a Sanctuary Policy? While there is no legal definition for sanctuary policies, the term is applied to jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, such as information about immigration status and limiting the length of immigration detainers. Click here to read more.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform:

Sanctuary Policies Across America

The Role of State and Local Enforcement in Immigration Matters and Reasons to Resist Sanctuary Policies — Read the issue brief.

Sanctuary Policy is Bad Public Policy — Read the fact sheet.

Sanctuary Cities: Obstructing Immigration Enforcement — Read the policy analysis.

Join us in Medinah, Illinois, to hear world renowned Christian apologist Ray Comfort. Space is limited, don’t miss this special one time event. Click HERE for more information.

Tickets are $10 each. Call 708-781-9328 or purchase tickets below.

Click HERE for flyer.

Anyone who doubts that “LGBTQQAP” activists and their “allies” are pursuing the hearts and minds of other people’s children should watch this sweet, well-crafted, animated short film about an adorable, red-headed, closeted middle school boy whose secret crush on another boy is exposed when his anthropomorphized heart leaps from his chest and pursues the boy with whom the main character is besotted.

The award-winning film titled “In a Heartbeat” was posted on YouTube less than a month ago and already has well over 27 million views.

The middle-school boy, literally and figuratively hiding, sees his beloved walking into school reading a book by homosexual writer Oscar Wilde and absent-mindedly tossing and catching an apple. (Is this an intentional allusion to grade school innocence or an inadvertent allusion to the forbidden fruit, the eating of which constituted rebellion against God and resulted in the fall of man?)

The freckle-faced, red-haired boy’s pulsing, panting, love-struck heart bursts forth and soars after the object of his affection, pausing momentarily to stroke the hair of the beloved, and in so doing exposes his crush to the disapproving faces of censorious peers. The freckly boy grabs his heart which splits in two, and he flees the schoolhouse, seeking refuge again in the shrubs—his metaphorical closet—all accompanied by heartstring-tugging music. Not to worry, though! All ends well when his love interest suddenly shows up, bringing the other half of his broken heart to him, restoring it to wholeness. And there in anti-Eden, homoerotic love blooms.

To better comprehend the troubling effects of this video, imagine that instead of a classmate the object of the main character’s secret crush were his brother. Leftists would likely be offended at such a morally repellent suggestion, but why should they be? If, as the Left has countless times proclaimed, “love is love♥,” what could possibly be offensive about erotic love between two brothers?

Of course, only the fringiest of the fringy Left think there are no distinctions between types of love. If pushed for clarification, even most “progressives” will admit they don’t really believe all types of loving relationships are identical. They don’t really believe that erotic activity can legitimately play a part in all types of loving relationships. Only the wholly amoral among us believe that “love is love.”

The Left uses this silly slogan to promote without proving the moral proposition that it is as morally legitimate for two people of the same sex to engage in erotic activity as it is for two people of opposite sexes to engage in it.  The film’s creators are making the implicit argument that the biological sex of humans is irrelevant to the morality of sexual activity. Leftists use the adolescent slogan “love is love” to distract the public from the central issue—which pertains not to love but to sex. The central issue concerns sexual morality and sexual boundaries. The Left seeks to skirt that issue by dangling an anthropomorphized heart in front of vulnerable and manipulable children.

The Left does not want to discuss the different forms of love: erotic (i.e., romantic love), philia (i.e., friendship), agape (i.e., the love of God for man and man for God, sacrificial love), and storge (i.e., familial or kinship love). After years of proclaiming that “love is love,” Leftists will have a difficult time explaining to children why erotic pleasures have no place in relationships constituted by storge or platonic love. They don’t want to discuss how we determine which types of relationships ought not include erotic activity. They don’t want to discuss whether the experience alone of romantic love—i.e., the attraction to and deep longing for union with another person—automatically renders sexual interaction moral.

And those who believe in a solely materialistic universe are going to have a really hard time explaining the source of their moral beliefs about whichever types of sexual activity they deem immoral.

But none of these thorny moral inconsistencies matter to those so irrational and corrupt that they no longer recognize or respect the reality and meaning of male-female differentiation.

And none of these profoundly important questions about sexual morality matter in a culture where cartoons shape feelings—nothing more than feelings. In Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman warned that “Americans no longer talk to each other. They entertain each other. They do not exchange ideas, they exchange images. They do not argue with propositions; they argue with good looks, celebrities and commercials.” And even with cartoons for children.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:
https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/In-a-Heartbeat-Propaganda-for-Children.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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