As you know, on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether to affirm or overturn the Court rulings that nullified the votes of 7 million Californians. Those voters approved an Amendment to their constitution to preserve marriage as a unique union between the two sexes. The supporters of homosexual marriage, who claim to have the public and history on their side, didn’t like what the voters in this blue state did, so they took the matter to courts that had been loaded with liberal judges over the years.
 
Often overlooked this week in the coverage is that Proposition 8 occurred in response to an earlier ruling by activist California courts overturning an earlier vote of the people (Prop. 22) affirming marriage between a man and a woman.
 
Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed to protect states like Illinois from having to recognize same-sex marriage.  DOMA passed overwhelmingly, by a vote of 342-67 in the U.S. House and 85-14.  
 
Massachusetts cannot dictate what public policy on marriage should be to all other states.  The law had (still has) strong legal precedent.  In a landmark 1939 case called the Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Industrial Accident, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the question of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.  The court said,  

“A State is not bound, apart from the compulsion of the full faith and credit clause, to enforce the laws of another State, nor, by its own statute, may it determine the choice of law to be applied in the other. Full faith and credit does not here enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.”

You might never know this given the coverage of the DOMA hearing this week, in which the media ran with the highly speculative story that DOMA was in trouble.   It may or may not be.  I have heard from observers who feel that Paul Clement, former U.S. Solicitor General, gave the strongest performance in defense of DOMA of any attorney in either case in the two days of oral arguments.
 
For all the claims that natural marriage is a losing issue, (which begs the question of why these matters are in the courts at all), there is polling out there which may explain why liberals want to use courts to force the unraveling of marriage upon America. 
 
First, there is an enormous poll from Reuters conducted over the last three months involving 24,455 people which found that only 41 percent of Americans said that they support same-sex marriage.  Fox News most recent poll found Americans virtually evenly split on the issue.  This fits into a story this week in the liberal Washington Post entitled, “Is support for Gay Marriage Over-Sold?” 
 
The Post story points out that when one looks at the most actual votes by the people, the polls routinely underestimate support for natural marriage by seven points.  The article admits that this is due in part because of the hostility toward people of traditional values.  People are afraid to say how they really feel about homosexual marriage in this culture.  Another factor that occurs on Election Day is that those who support natural marriage feel more strongly about it, than do those who want to restructure marriage.
 
What does it all mean?  Supporters of natural marriage have no reason to hang our heads, or to act as if this battle is lost simply because of a media narrative to the contrary.  (Few people know that over 10,000 people were in Washington on Tuesday to rally in support of traditional marriage, a large portion of whom were Hispanic and African-American.) 

Prayer and support for those fighting for marriage is very important.  This issue is far from over.

Written by Jim Finnegan, IFI Board Member

I am not at all surprised at the Daily Herald’s endorsement of homosexual “marriage.” As a long time reader of the Herald, it does hurt! However, when one remembers the support of abortion on demand by the Herald over the past 40 years, it goes right along with today’s attack on family and children. Over 50,000,000 dead unborn babies, and now their willingness to intentionally deny children either a father or mother.  Once again we wonder, “who will be there to pick up the pieces?” 

One questions this old friend regarding how those enlightened souls on their editorial board suddenly seem to be infused with a knowledge that so many others have missed since time immortal. 

Were their parents and grandparents since the beginning of time simply wrong on living their lives beholden to God’s clear words on this issue? “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh,” or the commandment given to Moses “Honor thy father and thy mother.” It was not honor thy father and father, or mother and mother. 

As a society we must not confuse tolerance with what is or is not moral. A huge difference between civil rights and chosen sexual behavior. When we allow homosexual “marriage” we create a same-sex family. Children grow up not understanding the proper relationship between a man and a woman, a husband and wife. Partners A and B on the bogus wedding certificate attests to that. 

The two most loving dads can never provide the unique nurturing skills of the missing mom, and visa-versa. All past studies show the damage that often occurs to the children when a family split occurs. 

Call your state legislators today and stop this foolishness from happening. Demand that they protect the God given gift of traditional/sacramental  marriage.  The Capitol switchboard number is (217) 782-2000.

Yesterday, there was a rally in support of natural marriage at the Capitol Rotunda in Springfield. 

Estimates of the numbers of attendees are between 3,000 and 5,000 — and this on a bitter cold winter day. 

Last night, WGN News and FOX News Chicago at 9:00 p.m. had no stories about the rally. 

ABC, NBC, and CBS at 10:00 p.m.—nothing. 

But while no station covered the story of 3,000-5,000 Illinoisans descending on Springfield in opposition to the legalization of “same-sex marriage,” CBS had a story about coyotes surrounding a golden retriever in an affluent North Shore suburb, NBC had a story about Michelle Obama’s new portrait, and ABC had a story about Robin Roberts’ return to Good Morning America. 

I awaited my morning Trib with bated breath…What, no story about a huge rally in support of natural marriage?   

Was this story not newsworthy? Was it not at least as newsworthy as Michelle’s new portrait? 

Some argue that there are rallies frequently in Springfield, most of which are not covered by the news. They argue that the absence of news coverage is not evidence of bias. 

But how many of these rallies number in the thousands of participants? How many of them address one of the most divisive issues in America today?  And how many of the legislative issues being addressed at these rallies are being monitored nationally as the potential legalization of “same-sex marriage” here in Illinois is? 

Inquiring minds wonder what the press coverage would have been if 3,000 homosexuals had rallied in Springfield in opposition to sexually complementary marriage.

Click HERE to support the work & ministry of IFI.

Last Thursday I had the opportunity to see the new Abraham Lincoln movie from Steven Spielberg.  It was a technical and visual masterpiece in terms of costume, cast, scenery, computer graphics, etc. Sally Field was remarkable as Mary Lincoln.   However, I agree with several historians who criticized the movie’s script, which included nearly 40 uses of profanity. They contend that certain vulgar words were not used in the 1860’s and certainly not by “honest Abe.” 

Most all of the movie centers around passage of the 13^th Amendment.  It shows Lincoln trying to hold all his Republicans together and gather a few lame duck Democrats for passage of the amendment prohibiting slavery in order to overcome fierce opposition from House Democrats. 

Evident, but not specifically mentioned in the movie, was the fact that the Republicans were still a new party. They had only recently been formed in 1856 by social conservatives (if we can use that modern term).   The party had tension between “radical abolitionists” and more moderate slavery opponents.  The new party, according to its platform, had been founded upon ending the “twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery” in America. This occurred after the Whig Party shot itself in the foot when it decided to call a truce on the divisive issue of slavery with a “36/30 degree line” proposal making some states free and some slave holding.  Even now, 156 years later, those battles over the equal value of all life, the protection of marriage as between only one man and one woman, and those who want to avoid such issues, still remain in the GOP.

A few days after seeing the movie I happened to be in an antique store where a century old book caught my eye and then my wallet. The book is called Lincoln and Prohibition.  It contains a lot of original first hand sources and Lincoln documentation including a long speech Abraham Lincoln gave to the Washingtonian Temperance Society on Feb. 22, 1842 about the effort to eliminate alcohol consumption. (He was also involved as legal counsel for an 1855 Illinois statewide temperance referendum.)  Here is how Lincoln compared that movement to our nation’s founding struggles:

“Turn now to the temperance revolution.  In it we shall find a stronger bondage broken, a viler slavery manumitted, a greater tyrant deposed — in it, more of want supplied, more disease healed, more sorrow assuaged.  By it no orphans starved, no widows weeping.  

And when the victory shall be complete – when there shall be neither a slave nor a drunkard on the earth – how proud the title of that Land which may truly claim the birthplace and the cradle of both those revolutions that shall have ended in that victory. How nobly distinguished that people, who shall have panted, and nurtured to maturity, both political and moral freedom of their species.”

 Twenty years later, then President Lincoln recalled his speeches in a meeting with the Sons of Temperance on September 29, 1863:

“When I was a young man, I in a humble way, made temperance speeches, and I think I may say that to this day I have never, by example, belied what I said.  I think that the reasonable men of the world would have long since agreed that intemperance [drunkenness] is one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, of all evils among mankind.”

It seems to me that Lincoln may have been much more of a Nineteenth Century social conservative than we remember him to have been.  Consider this point.  A few historians have questioned the profanity use in the Lincoln movie, including a couple by the President.  It seems highly unlikely that he spoke this way.

I spoke with historian David Barton about this, and he pointed out that early in the Civil War as Lincoln visited troops, he was distressed to hear profanity, so an order was issued against it, declaring:

 “Any non-commissioned officer or soldier who shall use any profane oath or execration shall incur the penalties expressed in the foregoing article.”

Concerning those penalties, it stated that . . .

“Commissioned officers be brought before a general court-martial, there to be publicly and severely reprimanded by the President; if non-commissioned officers or soldiers, every person so offending shall for his first offence forfeit one-sixth of a dollar, to be deducted out of his next pay; for the second offence, he shall not only forfeit a like sum but be confined twenty-four hours.”

Lincoln was so serious that these rules against profanity take hold among the troops that this order was to “be read every Sunday morning to each company and detachment serving in this Army.”    He even personally confronted one of his own generals when he learned of his profanity and then urged the general to use his authority to combat that vice.
 
Much of history as shown by Hollywood should be viewed with a discerning eye and ear and, if possible, compared with evidence of that era.  Still, it is worth remembering that much of what we do know through original documents will never be seen or heard by those who rely upon the entertainment medium to shape their opinions and views.

Sunday was a depressing news day. Here’s what purported “conservatives” George Will, Mary Matalin, and Matthew Dowd had to say about same-sex marriage: 

George Will: “This decision by the Supreme Court came 31 days after an Election Day in which three states for the first time endorsed same-sex marriage at the ballot box — never happened before — Maine, Maryland, and the state of Washington….they could say it’s now safe to look at this because there is something like an emerging consensus. Quite literally, the opposition to gay marriage is dying. It’s old people….marriage law is traditionally the prerogative of the states, but let’s put a human face on this. One of the two cases concerns a New York woman who married in Canada her female partner. They lived together 44 years. The partner dies. As because the partner wasn’t a man, the woman is hit with a $363,000 tax bill from the federal government. There are a thousand or more federal laws or programs that are at stake here. And the more the welfare state envelops us in regulations and benefits, the more the equal protection argument weighs in, and maybe decisively.” 

Matalin: “[The fact that increasing numbers of Americans are supporting same-sex marriage demonstrates that] Americans have common sense. There are important constitutional, biological, theological, ontological questions relative to homosexual marriage, but people who live in the real world say the greatest threat to civil order is heterosexuals who don’t get married and are making babies. That’s an epidemic in crisis proportions. That is irrefutably more problematic for our culture than homosexuals getting married. So I find this an important dancing on the head of a pin argument.” 

Dowd: “To me, this — the consensus has already emerged on this issue. It’s just a question of who’s going to — is the Supreme Court going to catch up and follow that wind of the pack…or get ahead of it or put a block in the path of it. I mean, if you take a look at this, there is still a division in this country over this issue, but there is no division in this country among people under 35 or 30 years old on this issue. There is no division. Now, I have a perfect example. My son went in the Army…..10 years before, they’d ask everybody to raise that hands, 300 guys raise their hand, who’s for gay — who’s for gays in the military? Eighty percent of the troops said we’re opposed to gays in the military. When he got in, five or six years later, 80 percent said they were for gays in the military. It had changed that much and that quick. To me, we still — you still have to know there’s a huge group of folks in this country that believe this issue is not ready to be settled nationally, and they’re over 35, they go to church regularly, they still view marriage as traditional and all that, but in the end, this issue, five years from now is even going to be more settled, 10 years from now is going to be more settled. 

To George Will: Why would our youth oppose the legalization of “same-sex marriage” when they’ve never been exposed to the substantive reasons to do so? 

To Mary Matalin: She has implicitly posited a false dichotomy between opposing out of wedlock births and opposing “same-sex marriage.” One can and should do both. Matalin reveals her own ignorance if she really believes discussions of the legalization of “same-sex marriage” constitute airy debates on inconsequential philosophical minutia. 

To Matthew Dowd: The fact that ten years ago 240 out of 3oo young soldiers opposed homosexuals serving in the military, while now only 60 out of 300 oppose homosexuals serving in the military may have something to do with the demagogic propaganda about homosexuality to which they’ve been exposed in their schools and entertainment industry virtually from birth. Dowd is right: the culture will devolve further into moral and intellectual ignorance if academia continues to expose students only to the work of Leftists; if churches refuse to find ways to help Christians recognize the fallacious arguments used to normalize homosexuality; and if Hollywood continues to manipulate the emotions of Americans, particularly our vulnerable youth.

In case no one has noticed, journalists never ask Democrats the hard questions regarding homosexuality—and I mean never.  Perhaps our news show hosts should ask their guests and panelists these questions: 

1. Many compare same-sex marriage to interracial marriage. In what specific ways is homosexuality like race?
    
2. If the institution of marriage has nothing inherently to do with sexual complementarity and procreative potential, then why should it be limited to two people or to people who are not close blood relatives?
    
3. If marriage is—as the Left claims it is–solely the institutional recognition of deeply felt, intense loving feelings between people, why should the government prohibit two brothers who are in love from marrying? If people should be allowed to marry whomever they love—as the Left claims they should be–then why shouldn’t two brothers and their mutual boyfriend be permitted to marry?
    
4. Does marriage have an inherent nature that government merely recognizes, or does society create it out of whole cloth?
    
5. Are rights granted to couples or to individuals?
    
6. Are rights accorded to people based on their objective characteristics or on their subjective feelings and volitional acts? 

If any journalists have the integrity to ask these hard questions, they shouldn’t let our mollycoddled liberals off the hook when they respond with ignorant, evasive non-answers. 

It would also be refreshing if our talk shows would invite Princeton University Law Professor Robert George to discuss the issue of marriage with “conservatives” like George Will, Mary Matalin, and Matthew Dowd—or would that be considered “bullying”?

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.  Please consider standing with us.

Click here to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI).  Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible!

You can also send a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

This is an open letter to both the Chicago Phoenix, an online “LGBT” news source, and the homosexual activist organization Equality Illinois in response to defamatory and unsubstantiated statements made by Bernard Cherkasov, CEO of Equality Illinois, and appearing in articles written by Katherine Iorio and Tony Merevick about the East Aurora High School gender confusion policy.

Both Iorio and Merevick quote Cherkasov as saying that IFI spreads “‘venomous lies,'” and according to Merevick, Cherkasov also said that  “‘The Illinois Family Institute, designated a ‘hate group’ for its Nazi and racist hate speech, is generating the hate and the heat.'”

The “hate group” designation comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which created the hate groups list, decided which groups they wanted on it, and then several years later manufactured loosey goosey criteria that would justify their inclusion of groups they hate on their hate groups list.

If Cherkasov is going to make defamatory public claims like these, he has an ethical obligation to provide clear evidence from our website to support them. 

And if Iorio and Merevick are going to quote such defamatory claims, they have an ethical obligation to ask for his evidence, that is to say, quotes from IFI, to support them. 

We have never employed “Nazi and racist hate speech,” (or, for the record, any other kind of hate speech).  Nor do we “spew venomous lies.”

If Mr. Cherkasov cannot provide textual evidence from our website that proves that we have employed “Nazi and racist hate speech,” or disseminated lies (i.e. deliberate and known falsehoods), then Cherkasov, Iorio, and Merevick owe us a public apology. 

Point of clarity: What IFI consistently claims is that we believe volitional homosexual acts are not moral acts and that crossdressing and elective amputations of healthy body parts are not moral acts. Expressions of belief about what constitutes immoral behavior do not constitute hatred of persons. If Cherkasov were to apply consistently the principle that he and the ethically impoverished and intellectually vacuous* Southern Poverty Law Center hold, which is that IFI’s moral claims about volitional acts constitute hatred of persons, then anyone who expresses any belief about what constitutes immoral behavior would have to be considered guilty of hating persons. 

The reality is that most people in this diverse United States are fully capable of tolerating, delighting in the company of, and even loving those whose beliefs, values, attractions, and behavioral choices they find wrongheaded. Most of us do it everyday. Cherkasov and the SPLC ought not project on to others their own inability to love and treat civilly those with whom they disagree. Nor should they make vicious, unsubstantiated, and false statements about them.

* In other articles, I have provided ample textual evidence for my claim that the SPLC is ethically impoverished and intellectually vacuous.

On Wednesday, Erika Wurst, reporter for the Sun Times Beacon-News wrote an article about East Aurora High School’s recently adopted policy on gender confusion. In it Wurst quoted a “suburban high school math teacher” who blogged favorably about the policy, but curiously, she didn’t provide his name. His name is Hemant Mehta, also known as “the Friendly Atheist.” Although I am loathe to send anyone to his blog, I think readers deserved to know who exactly the math teacher is whom Wurst quoted. Knowing who he is puts his comments in the proper perspective. 

If you spend any time on Mehta’s blog, you will find that he promotes both atheism and the extraordinarily obscene and hateful religious bigot Dan Savage. In addition, Mehta, who is a Neuqua Valley High School math teacher, regularly uses profane and obscene language. Mehta’s endorsement of the East Aurora High School policy provides further evidence that it’s bad policy. 

It’s understandable why Wurst would not want to provide attribution for a source like Mehta, but such an omission is not good journalism.

 The Associated Press reported this week on a new study from a homosexual demands group trumpeting the “highest-ever number of gay and bisexual characters on scripted broadcast network” television.  They note that the number of homosexual characters on cable television is also growing.  In their 17^th annual “Where We Are on TV” report the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) found that overall homosexuals represent nearly 5 percent of TV characters, up from 2.9 percent in 2011.   ABC has the highest amount at 5.2 percent of their regular characters portrayed as homosexual.  CBS was saluted as having the largest increase from 0.7 percent in 2011 to 2.8 percent in 2012.
 
These may not sound like very significant or influential numbers, but remember that in the real world homosexuals make up only between 2 and 3 percent of the population.  So, television viewers are seeing homosexuality portrayed at a rate that is twice as high as it occurs in real life, and you can bet that none of homosexuality’s individual harms are ever revealed on TV. GLAAD makes sure that the portrayal of homosexuality on TV is always positive.  
 
Imagine the impact TV might have on society if real world demographic numbers were applied to characters.  When is the last time you saw even one positive portrayal of a Christian on a TV sitcom or drama?  A 2008 study found that 34 percent of Americans describe themselves not simply as Christian, but as “born-again” Christians.  If the rate for Christians was the same as homosexual portrayals, nearly 7 out of 10 TV characters would be positive displays of Christianity.   Imagine the impact that would have on viewers and our culture.
 
Ironically, GLAAD President Herndon Graddick said of their report “More and more Americans have come to accept their LGBT family members, friends, co-workers and peers, and as audiences tune into their favorite programs, they expect to see the same diversity of people they encounter in their daily lives.”   Apparently, this “same diversity of people” only applies to one’s bedroom behavioral choices.
 
As I mentioned, Christian characters are virtually non-existent on network TV. The number of Hispanic characters is actually on the decline from 2011, and massively underrepresented by 75 percent. African-Americans are also underrepresented on TV, compared to their actual population numbers. Those two genetic traits of skin color cannot be hidden on camera.  In that sense, one has to give groups like GLAAD their due, they have made sure what a small few choose to do in the bedroom is significantly over-glorified and over-represented as a character lifestyle on TV.

In light of the recent attempted murder of employees at the Family Research Council (FRC), several pro-family organizations, including IFI, and private citizens are asking Fox News to discontinue guest appearances by homosexual agitator Wayne Besen on the popular O’Reilly Factor TV show. 

Besen has a long history of slandering conservative groups and the ex-gay community in language that foments hatred and undermines civil discourse.  

Last week Fox News reported that Tony Perkins, FRC’s president, blamed the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and its rhetoric of hateful lies against FRC for helping to create a climate that led to shooter Floyd Corkins’ actions, (attempting to kill conservative Christians at FRC for opposing ‘gay’ marriage).
 
The SPLC and Wayne Besen are united in demonizing conservative organizations and individuals.  Despite repeated complaints about Besen’s appearances, producers of the O’Reilly Factor continue to feature Besen, a radical homosexual activist aligned with the SPLC, as a guest commentator.

SELECT HERE TO READ A FULL LIST OF PRO-FAMILY LEADERS SIGNING THIS PETITION.

Last year the controversial Besen and the SPLC ally jointly staged a protest  outside of FRC’s Values Voters conference, falsely accusing FRC and the American Family Association of hatred and lies.  Besen publicly labeled FRC’s conservative speakers as “certifiable lunatics with dangerous agendas.”  Both Besen and the SPLC took out an ad in the Washington Post falsely blaming FRC for gays being more likely “to be victimized by violent hate crimes” and “driven to suicide by relentless bullying.” 

Besen and the SPLC also target the ex-gay community, claiming that former homosexuals are a ” “ and that ex-gays are not entitled to the same rights and respect that gays currently enjoy.  In a bizarre move, Besen and SPLC are now filing complaints against therapists who counsel homosexuals with unwanted same-sex attractions, thereby denying gays the right of therapeutic self-determination.  (Read more HERE.)
 
Condemnation of the SPLC’s — and by extension Wayne Besen’s — designation of pro-family groups as “hate groups” comes from both the political Right and Left. Rich Lowry of National Review wrote, “The SPLC’s promiscuous labeling of organizations it disagrees with as ‘hate groups’ came to the fore last week when someone tried to shoot up one of its targets.” 
 
And liberal journalist Dana Milbank echoed Lowry’s criticism: “[T]he Southern Poverty Law Center should stop listing a mainstream Christian advocacy group alongside neo-Nazis and Klansmen.”
 
It is time that the O’Reilly Factor cease using Besen as a guest commentator. Providing Besen with a forum lends credibility to his pernicious tactics and enables Besen to exploit his appearances for fundraising purposes.
 
When Fox News provides a forum to a radical homosexual activist known for employing inflammatory and hateful language in the service of promoting lies, the network becomes complicit in the damage done to the victims of Wayne Besen’s and the SPLC’s smear campaigns.
 
We ask the News Corporation, Fox News, and Bill O’Reilly to find more ethical spokespersons for the liberal view of sexuality.  In their infamous Washington Post ad accusing FRC of hateful values, Besen and the SPLC claim that “words have consequences.”  Yes, they do.  And Besen’s may lead to violence.

TAKE ACTION FOUR WAYS:

1) Click HERE to sign our free petition now, write a free comment, and we will deliver your first name, state, and comments to FOX NEWS and Bill O’Reilly.

2) Send Bill O’Reilly an email (oreilly@foxnews.com) and ask him to “Stop Inviting Wayne Besen and Stop Helping Anti-Christian SPLC.”

3) Tweet these words to your friends:  “Tell Bill O’Reilly to STOP giving airtime to SPLC anti-Christian haters. Sign the Petition: http://dld.bz/bKfu3 “

4) After you sign below, please share our petition widely on facebook, twitter, and email. 

LET’S STOP THE VIOLENCE AGAINST CHRISTIANS WHO DEFEND MARRIAGE = 1 MAN + 1 WOMAN.

In light of all the harsh media criticism of Mitt Romeny for Bain Capital’s outsourcing, I wonder if liberals should divest from, boycott, and indict all the evil companies that outsource, including the following:

1. Apple
    
2. Microsoft
    
3. Google
    
4. Facebook
5. Hollywood film and television studios
1. DreamWorks
2. Disney
    
6. Fashion industry
1.  Ralph Lauren
2. Ambercrombie & Fitch
3. Nike, Reebok, Adidas
    
7. Starbucks
    
8. Amazon
    
9. Xerox
    
10. Boeing
     
11. American Express 

I almost never go to the theater to see a movie. When I do, it is usually a children’s movie. I love movies, but older, pre-1970 ones make up the vast majority of my viewing. However, I went to see the new film “For Greater Glory” late last night.

The movie is based upon true events from the 1920’s in Mexico in which the country’s president systematically squelched religious freedom and began to persecute devout Catholics who refuse to go along with the government’s laws, particularly those prohibiting public expressions of faith. (Can you see why this film caught my attention and interest?)

For Greater Glory is a remarkable movie. It is entertaining, inspiring, emotional and timely too. I expect many movie critics to ignore or hate it for a variety of reasons including even its morality and values that defy its R rating.

I wonder if that restricted rating was given by the MPAA to deter some of this film’s most likely supporters. I did not hear a single profanity and there are no sex scenes. I suspect the rating came solely from two difficult scenes involving an effort to get a character to renounce his faith. I cannot say more than this without spoiling some things for those who may yet see the film. I will spoil the title, however. In one powerful scene, which probably drove some Hollywood movie and art critic types crazy, Peter O’Toole, plays an elderly priest who learns that government troops are coming to punish him for holding public mass outdoors and wearing his clerical clothing in public. (Taking one’s Christian faith outside the four walls of the church has never been all that popular.) O’Toole’s character is tearfully urged to hide as he sits in one of his church pews. He responds, “There is no greater glory than to die for Christ” a thought which carries throughout the rest of the film.

This is one secular movie worthy of seeing and supporting. In one sense it is reminiscent of films in the Golden Age of Hollywood when respectful portrayals of faith were common on the silver screen. It is also very good entertainment with high quality production values.

You can view the trailer and see more about the movie here: http://www.forgreaterglory.com/

The Parents Television Council has a new study of broadcast television looking at the major networks. Their findings comparing a five year period finds that, across all networks, use of profanity on prime-time broadcast entertainment programming increased 69.3 percent from 2005 to 2010.

Making this news even worse, the largest increases were found in the use of the harshest profanities, and in explicit references to genitalia and bodily functions. The largest increase occurred in the 8:00 p.m – 9:00 p.m. time slot once called the “Family Hour.”

WARNING: EXPLICIT DESCRIPTIONS; SKIP IF YOU’VE ALREADY READ ENOUGH

Across all networks and prime time hours, use of the bleeped or muted f-word increased from 11 instances total in 2005 to 276 instances in 2010 – an increase of 2,409 percent.

Across all networks, use of the bleeped f-word in the Family Hour increased from 10 instances in 2005 to 111 instances in 2010 – an increase of 1,010 percent.

Across all networks and prime time hours, use of the bleeped or muted s-word increased from 11 instances in 2005 to 95 instances in 2010 – an increase of 763 percent. (This does not include CBS using a bleeped s-word in the title of its sitcom $#*! My Dad Says – or NBC’s use of a scripted, unbleeped s-word on the September 23rd episode of 30 Rock.)

The Fox broadcast network showed the greatest per-hour increase in use of profanity from 2005 to 2010, with an increase in all profanity across all prime-time hours of 269 percent.

A new film, “October Baby” hit screens recently and conveys a positive, pro-life message. The film tells the story of Hannah, a college student who has battled significant health problems her entire life. Through a series of events, Hannah finds out that she was adopted and that she survived her biological mother’s attempt to abort her at 24 weeks.

The producers of “October Baby” have designated 10-percent of the profits from the movie to the Every Life is Beautiful Fund. The fund supports frontline organizations helping women facing crisis pregnancies, life-affirming adoption agencies, and those caring for orphans.

Click HERE to view the film’s official website. Click HERE to read a review from Focus on the Family’s Plugged In movie review site.

Saul Alinsky is alive and well in the political maneuverings of the secular left. The problem is; we all have the play book now.

As most know, Rush Limbaugh has been under fire of late for comments he made about 30 year-old “reproductive justice” radical Sandra Fluke. Ms. Fluke recently gained national attention while testifying before Congress. There, she demanded that Georgetown Law, a Jesuit University, underwrite her stated fornication practices by paying for her and other students’ birth control and, ostensibly, abortions. Fornication and abortion, of course, are considered “mortal sins” in Christianity. Catholic doctrine further bars the church from providing contraception.

Rush said of Fluke: “[T]hey’re talking about, like this left-wing sl-t, what’s her name? Sandra Fluke?”

Not really. Actually that bile came from the revolving pie-hole of MSNBC’s Ed Schultz in reference to conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham. Ms. Fluke recently went on Schultz’s program to criticize Limbaugh for indirectly suggesting that, in light of her admitted sexually immoral lifestyle, she was a “sl-t” (an offensive and inappropriate slang for which he has apologized).

During the interview Ms. Fluke somehow failed to mention Schultz’s identical insult of Ingraham. (An inadvertent oversight, I’m sure.)   

And speaking of double standards: the media has made much fanfare about a staged phone call from President Obama to Ms. Fluke to “ask how she was holding up.” (No call yet to the similarly aggrieved Laura Ingraham.)

Additionally, Obama has refused to return – or even answer questions about – a one million-dollar donation from serial misogynist Bill Maher who, among other things, has called Sarah Palin far worse.

Mainstream media-types have no interest in this double standard because they share it. They’re duty-bound to ignore the palpable hypocrisy. To do otherwise would undermine the absurd “GOP-has-declared-war-on-women” narrative. (By ‘women,’ of course, they mean liberal women – outnumbered by Rush-supporting conservative gals two-to-one).     

Indeed, Limbaugh has become the left’s flashpoint in this twofold election year ploy to both sour women against the GOP and distract from Obama’s impending debt bomb, skyrocketing gasoline prices and the threat of a nuclear Iran.

David Burge of the Iowa Hawk blog summed it up nicely in a tweet: “How can you monsters talk about a $15 trillion debt at a time like this, when a brave coed has hurt lady-feelings?”

Yes, how can we focus on trillions in Obama debt, $6.00 gasoline and Islamo-fascists with nukes while a Georgetown “coed” is being denied free medication from Christians for her “Saturday night fever”?

Well, I have it on good authority that today Rush is chewing a big fat Padron Toro and laughing himself silly. Every time McCarthyite liberals take a swing at El Rushbo, they get their hemp-clad heinies handed to them. It’s like watching Andre the Giant toss midgets.

On Wednesday, Rush announced on his show that the “progressive” machine’s latest effort to bring him down via a sponsorship boycott was failing fantastically. Following the DNC-manufactured Fluke dust-up, Rush revealed that he has suffered zero revenue loss (even making gains); that he has a wait list of new advertisers lining up, and that some of his former sponsors – who hastily bowed to leftist pressure and dropped him – are now “practically begging to come back.”   

This comes as little surprise. One such sponsor, Carbonite, saw its stock plummet by twelve percent overnight after announcing it was pulling its spots. This is what happens when a company puts partisan politics over profit.

Limbaugh – rated number one in talk radio – has tens-of-millions of loyal, activist listeners who love to spend tons of cash on the products Rush plugs. (Wonder how long before Carbonite CEO and MoveOn.org supporter David Friend “steps down” to “spend more time with his family”?)    

Still, liberal attempts to sidetrack aside, the cultural issues embedded within this Fluke flap are worthy of discussion. Only a dying culture lionizes a woman who publicly impugns – with pride – her own honor and virtue. Yet, to the left, she’s a hero.

It’s genuinely sad that, as a society, we are no longer appalled that a young, single woman – though very nice, I’m sure – would go on national television nonetheless, to proudly and publicly boast that, to her, while sex is cheap and casual, dealing with the potential consequences is so expensive that those of us who disagree must subsidize her bad behavior.

Can someone please explain to me how and why a woman’s “right” to be promiscuous is my financial responsibility? If you refuse to buy your own “preventative medicine,” why not hit up the fellas? Last I heard it takes two to do the fornication Fandango.

This is by design. Secular-“progressives” have been working to deconstruct traditional sexual morality for generations. The goal is to impose – under penalty of law – their own moral relativist, sexual anarchist worldview. (Hence, the unconstitutional ObamaCare mandate requiring that Christian groups cast aside millennia-old church doctrine, and get with the postmodern program.)  

But, beyond this assault on religious freedom and the moral implications surrounding the debate, Ms. Fluke has additionally set the true women’s movement back decades. Her public groveling for free contraception and abortifacients reinforces the sexist stereotype that single women can’t survive without welfare. Women’s empowerment? More like patriarchal government dependency.

Still, like so much in its propagandist bag of tricks, the left’s entire “denied access to contraception” premise is built upon a lie. Liberals would have you believe that, for decades, women seeking birth control – already cheap and often free – have been systemically tackled in front of Walgreens by a bevy of white, Republican Catholic Priests.

Name one woman who has been “denied access” to birth control – ever. Show me one Republican politico who wants to “ban contraception.”

There are none.

Birth control at Walgreens? A few dollars. Taking personal responsibility for your own lifestyle choices and consequences? Priceless.

That’s all Rush was saying.

Today, Monday, December 19, 2011, the Chicago Tribune included not one, but three articles (click HERE,HERE, and HERE) on “transgenderism” by Rex Huppke, their designated proselyte for “progressive” views of homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder (GID). (In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the American Psychiatric Association uses the term Gender Identity Disorder to designate the phenomenon that Huppke refers to as “transgender issues.”)

In response to these articles, I sent this brief letter to Mr. Huppke and to the Tribune editorial board:

Dear Mr. Huppke,

Once again, you’ve written an editorial masquerading as a news story. Your lengthy article (or three articles) on “transgender” issues includes one mention of American Family Association’s dissenting views on Gender Identity Disorder and one quote from Focus on the Family’s position statement on Gender Identity Disorder.

Apparently, you didn’t solicit any comments from either public policy organizations or mental health professionals who hold different views on the nature of Gender Identity Disorder, the morality of cross-dressing, or the ethics of “sex reassignment” surgery. The absence of any substantive exposition of dissenting views is particularly notable in light of two articles written by psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow that lit up the blogosphere, particularly among those who identify as homosexual and transgender. (Read Dr. Ablow’s articles HERE and HERE.)

It would have been illuminating to interview some theologians and philosophers on the nature of reality. For example, is “reality” merely a construct of our minds or our subjective feelings, or does an objective reality exist?

Another interesting question concerns allowing people to change their birth certificates: Does such an act make the state complicit in fraud?

Or, what evidence do you have for your clear implication that “discrimination” is the cause of the the increased risk of suicidal ideation among those who experience Gender Identity Disorder. And what do you mean when you use the word “discrimination”? Do all expressions of moral disapproval of behavior constitute illegitimate “discrimination” or just those with which you disagree?

But alas, it’s abundantly clear that your mission is not to report or discuss, but to exploit your position as a journalist to write an extended apologetic for your personal moral, philosophical, and political views, painted over with a rhetorical patina of neutrality.

What is equally troubling is that your bosses find this acceptable.

Sincerely,

Laurie Higgins
IFI Cultural Analyst

Take ACTION: Chicago Tribune reporter Rex Huppke continues to write pro-homosexual opinion pieces, presenting them as “new” articles.

Send email complaints to the Tribune editorial board about Mr. Huppke’s lack of balance and failure to present views from mental health professionals who hold different views on the nature of Gender Identity Disorder, the morality of cross-dressing, or the ethics of “sex reassignment” surgery.

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188

Phone: (708) 781-9328
Fax: (708) 781-9376

Evil men don’t understand the importance of justice,
but those who follow the Lord are much concerned about it.
~Proverbs 28:5