It might sound unbelievable, but the days of sipping a cup of coffee and reading the morning newspaper while sitting at the kitchen table or riding a train to work may soon become a thing of the past.  According to reports, many major newspapers across the U.S. are in deep financial trouble.  A number of publications may go out of business entirely, change to an Internet format only, or file for bankruptcy.
 
A recent article published on Time.com listed many cash-strapped major newspapers.  The list includes such noted publications as The Philadelphia Daily News, The Minneapolis Star Tribune, The Miami Herald, The Detroit News, The Boston Globe, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Chicago Sun-Times, The New York Daily News, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram and The Cleveland Plain Dealer.
 
Long-time stalwarts, including the Rocky Mountain News, have stopped their presses and no longer exist.  Today, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer can only be found online.  In Illinois, The Chicago Tribune recently declared bankruptcy.  Indeed, Chicago may be soon become a one-paper city–if and when The Chicago Sun-Times succumb to its financial woes.
 
The problems facing the newspaper industry are far and deep.  The long-standing relationship between newspapers and wire services, like the Associated Press (AP), are also at a low point.  The AP–which provides coverage and photos of stories to publications not at a local newspaper’s disposal–is also subject to major changes in the very near future.
 
Local newspapers–which subscribe to the AP for articles written by that wire service–are balking at the costs that can exceed over $800,000 a year.   Some publications will cancel their contracts with the AP, joining or forming local consortiums of newspapers to increase their scope of coverage without having to pay the exorbitant fees charged by the AP.
 
Adding to the woes of many publications is falling advertising,  revenue which has dropped 25% during the past two years.  Even The New York Times, America’s supposed “newspaper of record” finds itself among those papers which are on the brink of financial failure.  The San Francisco Chronicle is seeking legislation to change laws which restrict one company from owning more than one newspaper in the same city in order to head off that publication’s demise.
 
Many point to these dramatic events as the result of the rapid growth of technology.  Some say the Internet is a much more up to date and reliable source of information which has, in many circles, made newspapers obsolete.
 
“I enjoy reading the newspaper.  It’s almost a tradition in my family,” said Dean, 79, a central Illinois resident.  “However, by the time the morning newspaper arrives, the stories I’m perusing is old news because of the Internet and the 24 hour cable news cycle.”
 
I have been analyzing the mainstream media for almost 20 years and I have a different take on the problems facing journalism in America today.  In fact, the newspapers in Illinois can give us a perfect illustration of why some publications thrive while others are failing.  Chicago’s two major dailies present a microcosm of what has led to the economic downturn facing so many publishers across America.  At one time, the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times covered the news from differing political perspectives.  In the past, Chicago had as many as four daily newspapers, ensuring for readers a look at the events of the day from a more balanced perspective.  The Chicago Tribune was seen as the more conservative of the city’s two major publications, while the Chicago Sun-Times was more liberal in its presentation.  This is not the case today.  Journalism has become homogenized.  It is widely acknowledged that both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times have liberal editorial boards, and, unfortunately, the political views held by these publishers have bled into the hard news sections.
 
Sadly, the economic demise of newspapers like the Chicago Tribune may be a result of a departure from the traditional tenets of journalism.  The political ideology of a paper should only be found on the editorial pages.  Yet, long ago, many conservatives learned this is not true.  For a case in point, a number of pro-life organizations complained about the slanted coverage in the Chicago Tribune regarding the issue of abortion.  Hundreds of thousands were attending the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. which is held to note the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a U.S. Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion in America in 1973.  Though over a half million pro-life demonstrators made the trek to the U.S. capitol in 2003, the Chicago Tribune did not dedicate one column inch to the coverage of the event.
 
Indeed, newspapers have adopted special politically correct language when dealing with issues like abortion.  For example, the word pro-life was often edited out (or even changed to anti-choice) in letters to the editor submitted by readers and, in some cases, Chicago Tribune contributing columnists themselves had restrictions on the terminology they were allowed to use.  The standard was set by something called a “stylebook” which is a guideline of “accepted” p.c. terminology which all newspapers use.
 
The failure by the Chicago Tribune to cover the March for Life in 2003 (and the many thousands who have attended the event in subsequent years) was a result of subjective journalism.  The quote I received from Tribune management on this lack of coverage asserted that no matter how many turned out, the event was not “newsworthy”.
 
It wasn’t “newsworthy” to whom? This type of reporting, or lack thereof, is at the root of the financial problems facing print journalism.
 
The Chicago Tribune’s reluctance to cover events like the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. was only the tip of the iceberg.  The newspaper used the same tact in its hard news stories regarding the reporting on pro-family issues and subjects including gun control, school choice, and illegal immigration.
 
Eventually, thousands of conservatives and fair-minded people with no allegiance to any political ideology showed their discontent by canceling their subscriptions in droves.  Though there are those who downplay conservatives turning away from newspapers which alienated them, it is certain that the economic situation facing the world of print journalism was (and is) at least in part, a result of this fact.
 
The success of the Fox News Channel (FNC) can be seen as proof that conservative America can impact the bottom line of news agencies.  FNC’s primetime news and commentary programming has ratings which equal those of CNN, CNN Headline News and MSNBC combined.  Also, Internet news sources, including World Net Daily and NewsMax attract huge numbers of Americans daily.  The truth is, politically ideology has damaged the journalistic reputation and earning power of newspapers which report on the news from a liberal perspective.
 
In contrast, a source told me the Springfield State Journal-Register, located in central Illinois, is in no financial difficulty.  This may be the result of this paper’s coverage–which many see as being more objective than their counterparts in Chicago and major cities across the nation.  The amazing aspect of it all is the newspapers which find themselves on the brink of fiscal disaster have refused to change.  After contacting the editorial boards of literally dozens of American newspapers, I have found the most egregious violators of journalistic objectivity are the most reluctant to present their coverage of social and political issues in a fair manner.  When I speak of fairness, I do not mean a story has to be covered from my point of view.  As a character on an old television show called Dragnet used to say, “Facts, just the facts.”  That should be a requirement from all journalists.  Of course, newspapers have the right to their editorial opinions, but such ideology should not be a part of hard news coverage.
 
It would be absurd to say the Internet has not played a role in the decline of daily newspapers.  In fact, many people under the age of 30 have never looked to a newspaper for information about the world around them.
 
“I never read the paper,” said Tim, an 18 year old Chicago native.  “The Internet provides all the information I need, when I need it and its more up to date, too.”
 
Tim’s sentiments cannot be denied.  However, the tradition of holding something of substance is not the same as using a Blackberry or a PC.  The newspaper is an American tradition which should not go by the wayside.  But, in reality, the industry may be its own worst enemy.  Over the last 30 years, many newspapers have failed to serve a considerable percentage of the population.  Subsequently, a substantial number of Americans have turned to sources which they feel speak to them.
 
Hopefully, it is not too late.  I truly believe if publishers turn away from their attempt to culturally re-engineer American society and return to the true tenets of objective journalism, newspapers may survive.  If not, that daily paper–which once sat on every America kitchen table–may soon become a thing of the long-forgotten past.

The other day, my wife and I were sitting on the couch having a conversation about this or that, and the television was on over in the corner, chattering away to no one.  Isn’t that the case in most households?  It’s as if the TV is a full-time babysitter, even if there’s no baby to sit with.  It’s simply the all-seeing eye that can’t see but is always there.

While my wife went to the refrigerator, my attention drifted over to the TV and I heard something strange.  A cute movie called “Kindergarten Cop” was on.  The film stars Arnold Schwarzenegger and was made in 1990.  Arnold plays a tough undercover cop, doubling as a kindergarten teacher to catch a bad guy.  I was taken aback when I heard Arnold leading the children in the Pledge of Allegiance.  In the course of Arnold’s students reciting the pledge, they said, “…one nation, under God…”  It suddenly came to me.  This movie–made just under 20 years ago–would be politically incorrect today.

The fact is, God and any mention of Him is now taboo in Hollywood–unless a movie or television program is depicting a Scripture-quoting serial killer.  But anyone who watched the 2009 Academy Awards got an idea how far down the slippery slope our nation has come regarding traditional values.

Sean Penn was the night’s big winner when he received an Oscar for best actor in a movie titled “Milk”.  I don’t plan to see the film–which is a true story about Harvey Milk–an “openly gay” elected official from San Francisco who was murdered by a deranged co-worker.  Since his killing, Milk has been held up as a martyr in the homosexual community.

During Penn’s acceptance speech, he lectured Americans and the hundreds of millions watching around the world about homosexual “marriage”.  Oh how far we have come!  But Penn’s words illustrated perfectly how Hollywood and the mainstream media have advanced one far Left agenda after another down the throats of Americans.  And, if we disagree, people like Penn tell us we should “be ashamed” as he did on Oscar night.

For the past 50 years, the Left has used movies and other forms of entertainment to “morally educate” Americans.  At first, they gently tap at the door.  It is akin to a person getting into a cold pool; some dive in, others take their time.  Little by little, you get used to the water’s temperature and the shock goes away in a few short moments.  Imagine if Penn tried to give his speech in 1960, a mere five decades past.  Obviously, such a speech would never have been given or tolerated.

The truth of the matter is, Hollywood can take the blame for many of the social ills we are facing in our society.  From Ellen Degeneres’ situation comedy to movies like Brokeback Mountain, the dominant media has desensitized the public regarding homosexuality and other issues which, at one time, would have been considered obscene.

Today, you can’t watch television without being assaulted by some homosexual character who is always the “sensitive” individual, depicted as caring and in true possession of the meaning of it all.  The truth is that often homosexuals have horrible lives– and I’m not talking about their economic status because people in this group statistically earn more than the average American.  For the most part, they are not the downtrodden or economically depressed.

Of course, you’ll find those who have rationalized their behavior to themselves.  But the few homosexuals I have spoken with paint a very different story about their personal lives.  They are haunted by their inability to escape lustful habits which consume them.  It truly is a lifestyle from which many wish they could escape–and some do with the help of God.  The contrast between the media’s portrayal of homosexuality and the reality of that lifestyle is striking.  But, if the real behavior were shown, we would hear the truth about the medical problems associated with this behavior, the high rates of suicide, and other issues that reflect reality– not the rosy picture that has been sold to the American public.

Only God knows what we will be seeing 20 years from now.  Will the media and Hollywood continue to demonize Christians and conservative Jews to the point it will be illegal to quote Scripture that offends those who practice ungodly behavior?  This is already the case in some countries: the quoting of Bible verses on homosexuality are considered hate speech by some governments.  There are those in the media and especially Hollywood who would not bat an eye if such laws were passed in America.  In fact, nothing would shock me anymore.  Will the far Left one day promote adults having sex with children?  There are groups who openly promote this sick, illegal and morally corrupt behavior.  There have been movies in recent years which have hinted at the idea that children are entitled to express their “sexuality,” even if it’s with an adult.

Only God knows where this all will end.  A foul and demonic genie escaped hellish binds just a few short decades ago.  Hollywood and New York have taken full advantage of their power to influence the public.  They understand this power…oh so well.  They attempt to smash dissent whenever it occurs, calling it intolerance or bigotry.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no going back.  The monster that was once knocking at the door has found its way into our culture, primarily on the shoulders of a media which sees people of faith as ignorant and bitter fools in need of an education.  The responsibility to guard the gates of our homes and families has become even greater.  There is no simple answer that will stop the war being waged on traditional family values.  The best thing we all can do is be aware.  We can defend our values by doing things like paying attention to what our children are being taught at schools.  There’s no better way to do that than by reading reports by Laurie Higgins, Director of IFI’s Division of Schhol Advocacy (DSA).  In addition, we can turn that all-seeing eye in the corner of our living room off and limit and monitor our children’s use of the Internet.

Our society may be dragged down into the muck by those in Hollywood, but we as individuals, families, and communities don’t have to go down with them.

It was shocking to some, just “business as usual” to others. A governor of Illinois was arrested by federal agents for a litany of charges, including an alleged attempt to sell a U.S. Senate seat.

We have gotten to the point in Illinois where the names don’t matter and the political affiliations don’t either. One more story about government gone bad with the victims being the people of our state.

How did we come to such a place where corruption in politics is part of Illinois folklore? There is even a joke in Chicago that goes something like: “Vote early and vote often.”

The only problem with that gallows-type humor is the joke is a true statement of politics in the “Land of Lincoln” that is more sad than funny. A vast majority of the public blames the politicians themselves for the sad state of affairs which has made Illinois the brunt of comic relief across the nation, and they are right in doing so. Men and women are responsible for their actions whether they work in a grocery store or as a member of the U.S. Senate. However, I found great irony when one of the allegations facing now impeached former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich included charges involving the Chicago Tribune.

You see Blagojevich, allegedly, as part of a business deal, called for the firing of some editors at the Tribune who did not treat the then-Governor the way he felt they should have treated him.

But why would Blagojevich have the audacity to make such demands on the Chicago Tribune or any other member of the Fourth Estate in the first place? Could it be he expected the same coverage other Machine politicians have received for decades? Indeed, did Blagojevich think the Tribunemight honor his request? I believe the answer to those questions are a resounding “yes” and though the Tribune is not the only villain in this sad saga, the recently bankrupt newspaper helped to create the political cesspool that many are calling Illinois politics.

Some might call it guilt by omission, others might refer to the coverage of politics in Chicago as tacit complicity which gives politicians the license to do what they will. Holding elected office was once considered public service. In fact, many politicians aspired to be statesmen — that is to say, an unselfish servant of the people.

The Founding Fathers of our nation in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution assigned special privileges and rights which were meant to help the press be a watchdog for the people. It was a type of check and balance with the press given a tremendous responsibility — which is to safeguard our democratic republic. The relationship between government and the press is a delicate one. When it is working properly, much good can come of it. When it is not working properly, corruption will, most certainly, sprout like weeds in freshly mowed grass after a soft summer rain.

Members of the media can only do their jobs when they have access. Politicians have learned how to play the game, and one of the ways to control what the media reports is by controlling that access. Subsequently, journalists — being human beings — have choices to make. Do they write stories that may expose political malfeasance and, at the same time, possibly jeopardize their career, especially in large cities where government may be controlled by a one-Party system.

Human beings find it much easier to row downstream instead of traveling up river where they’re sure to fight currents and eddies along the way. Unfortunately, in Chicago, many journalists have found it easier to go with the flow and look the other way while saying, “that’s Chicago politics.”

That is not the way the Founders designed the system to work. It is a vicious circle of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” that has left the good people of our state wondering how such things can happen. This is not a story about Republicans or Democrats. It’s not a story about conservatives or liberals. It is about individuals in the media not doing their jobs (for whatever motive) and the carnage that results. At times, the press act like sharks in blood-filled waters. The feeding frenzy which follows seems to come from nowhere. However, this only happens when the media — as in the Blagojevich situation — is given license to attack. A flurry of activity ensues. Some see it as the media doing its job. In reality, the press should always do its job. There should be consistency and continuity.

But in these times of 24 hour cable news and the Internet, it’s easier to run with the pack, instead of doing the hard-hitting investigative journalism which our form of government not only needs, but must have.

If the allegations are true, Rod Blagojevich was wrong and should pay a price for his misdeeds. Yet, at the same time, as with former Illinois GovernorGeorge Ryan before him — who now sits in a federal prison — is an environment of complacency within the media helping lead to a story of government gone wrong?

Without proper safeguards, corruption in politics will spread–like a fire fed by oxygen. Many members in the Chicago press need to ask themselves if they are part of the problem in Illinois or part of the solution. Of course, this is not an indictment of every journalist who does his or her best in their profession. Yet it is safe to say many have not done their jobs and the people of Illinois have paid the price for their negligence. They have paid the price in the trust lost to those holding elected office and in the myriad of investigations into corruption which have literally cost taxpayers millions of dollars. We all deserve better.

Without exception, the most trying duty of an American President is to send men and women into harm’s way.  Even more emotionally devastating is when a Commander-in-Chief must take responsibility for those who paid the ultimate price while defending U.S. policy on foreign soil.

One of the greatest speeches in American history took place on a then-unknown battle field in Pennsylvania.  The Gettysburg Address was written by Abraham Lincoln and will go down as perhaps the most eloquent description of the sacrifice made by tens of thousands of men who died on American soil.

Nearly every President in our nation’s great history has had to face this daunting responsibility.  During World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt made some hard decisions about media access to returning war dead.  FDR had concerns about the morale of a nation whose sons and daughters were paying the price by the thousands every month in the greatest conflagration the world has ever seen.  Harry S. Truman was put through the same psychological trauma during the Korean War.  But perhaps the greatest mental anguish was suffered by Lyndon Johnson who was Commander-in-Chief during an unpopular war in Viet Nam where eventually over 58,000 members of the U.S. military came home in flag-draped coffins.  What made the Viet Nam experience even more controversial was the fact photographs of America’s fallen heroes were used to advance political agendas.  Those who died were Republicans and Democrats, Libertarians and Independents.  However, there’s no doubt those who paid the ultimate price were too often used for political agendas not intended to honor their memory.

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush put into effect a policy which restricted the media from having access to American war dead returning from conflicts, including the first Gulf War.  At the time, the media did not put up a serious objection to Bush’s decision and subsequently only photographs approved by the Pentagon of flag-draped coffins have been made available to the press.

Much of the liberal media’s attitude changed during the dark days of Operation Iraqi Freedom which in 2003 had the wide support of the American public.  But as days turned into months, and months turned into years, and while casualties escalated, there were some who clamored to have access to pictures and video of growing numbers of America’s returning war dead.  As the numbers of American casualties grew in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were politicians and members of the mainstream media who wanted to use the gruesome specter of the aftermath of war to advance a particular political agenda.

There are those of us who believe the ultimate sacrifice of American men and women should not be used for political expedience, no matter how popular or unpopular a conflict.  It does the families of these brave men and women the greatest dishonor to see their loved ones used as pawns in a game of political one-upsmanship.

Sadly, there are those urged on by the media who do not share these sentiments.  Recently, U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey has floated a proposition that the ban on media access to returning American war dead be lifted.  To me, this issue is not a matter of politics.  Men and women who put themselves in harm’s way for the sake of their nation do not look to see if their fellow warriors are Republicans or Democrats,  liberal or conservative.  Catholics and Protestants die together in war.  Jews and Mormons share places of hallowed reverence in Arlington Cemetery and other resting sites for those who now tread in holy places.  They are “bands of brothers” whose sacrifice deserves more than a sound byte in a thirty-second news segment criticizing or praising the battles which they fought.  But my words should carry the least weight in this debate.  Perhaps the decision over this matter should be left up to the families whose fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, uncles, aunts, friends, or loved ones took their last breath on foreign soil.

We live in a democratic republic and the media has the right to report on many things.  But there are subjects which transcend the freedom of the press.  I believe this issue should always be beyond those who will use it to advance a cause other than to honor of our fallen brethren.  Some may differ with my opinion on this issue and they have the right to do so.  That’s what makes our country so great.  But their reasoning must consist of an argument that I and many others fail to comprehend.  There is a well-worn phrase which has become very popular in today’s society:  “Is nothing sacred?”  Yes, there are things that are sacred.  There are lines which should not be crossed.  The sanctity, honor, and privacy of those returning to their country for the last time is one of those thresholds which deserves the reverence commensurate with the price that was paid.

Kristen McQueary of the Southtown Star newspaper has the dubious honor of being the first journalist of whom I’m aware to mischaracterize a position of mine through rhetorical manipulation. (Read McQueary’s columnHERE.)

The offense occurs in this statement by McQueary: “[Higgins] went on to say that no human being is perfect and that an extramarital affair, for example, would be an OK offense for a schools [sic] CEO, as long as the person repented their wrongdoing — much as she believes Huberman should.”

What she neglected to say was that she asked me the question: “Well, what would you say if Mayor Daley appointed someone who had had an extra-marital affair?”

I responded that if this person came forward publicly and affirmed extramarital affairs as morally legitimate and shared with the public his intention to maintain an extramarital relationship, I would be equally concerned and find him equally unsuitable for the position.

If, however, he expressed his view that his conduct was immoral and repented of it, his failing should not disqualify him from the position. In other words, as I said in my initial article, it is not personal failings but public affirmation of immorality as morality that renders Huberman unsuitable for the position of premier educational leader in Chicago.

I would never say or imply, nor do I believe, that extramarital affairs are “OK offenses” for anyone.

McQueary dismisses my comparison of homosexuality to polyamory with a wave of her patronizing pen: “Higgins compared homosexuality to the sexual trysts of polyamoury, the practice of having more than one intimate relationship, even though Huberman implied he is in a committed relationship.” In a follow up phone conversation with McQueary, I asked how polyamory was different from homosexuality. She told me that she would not answer the question.

McQueary might want to do a little more research. Many polyamorists believe that their emotional and sexual attraction to more than one person simultaneously is a sexual orientation — not merely a practice. And some, perhaps many, are in committed relationships. In fact, Mormons who have multiple wives would be more accurately described as polyamorists than polygamists in that they are not legally married.

McQueary implicitly expresses the tired, unproven, and profoundly destructive argument that of all the wide variety of sexual behaviors emerging from the fertile and dissolute minds of humans, from bestiality to “man-boy love” to consensual incest to polyamory to homosexuality, the only one that is not merely a practice, the only one that constitutes an immutable identity that all must approve, affirm, and celebrate is homosexuality. And these philosophical propositions about the nature and morality of homosexuality are foisted on all of society with no proof.

McQueary finds it “repugnant when social conservatives waste valuable time and resources fastened to the bedposts of others, all under the banner of ‘family values.'” She omitted another part of our discussion that would have been relevant here. She asked me why I spend so much time writing about this issue. I explained that I spend so much writing about this issue because public educators are spending so much public time and public money trying to transform the views of students on the nature and morality of homosexuality which is decidedly not the proper purview of public educators.

I explained that public schools engage in pervasive, near-absolute censorship of conservative scholarship and thinking on homosexuality which violates fundamental pedagogical principles. I offered her examples of ways in which unproven, controversial theories on the nature and morality of homosexuality are advanced in public schools. But I guess time and space constraints prevented her from including those quotes.

McQueary is “dumfounded by those who associate homosexuality with sexual deviance,” which is another way of saying that she believes homosexuality is not deviant. That, of course, is a moral claim for which she, and public educators who share that view and promote it with public money, never provide any evidence or justification. They simply declaim that homosexuality is not deviant and anyone who has arrived at a different moral conclusion is a “hater.” No discussion — just arrogant, dictatorial fiat.

When will conservatives demand that those who make this radical, subversive moral claim provide evidence for it? For example, on what basis do liberals determine what constitutes moral behavior? Are they devotees of John Stuart Mills’ utilitarianism? Are they members of the homosexuality-affirming Metropolitan Community Church? Do they believe in radical subjective relativism? Do they believe that homosexual conduct is biologically determined? If so, where’s their evidence? And how do they reconcile that unproven claim with “Queer Theory” that holds that sexual orientation is neither inherent nor immutable? Do they believe that any and all behavior that emerges from biologically influenced impulses is automatically moral? Are they willing to apply that principle consistently to all volitional behavior?

Ms. McQueary recommends that Illinois Family Institute: “should be sizing up Huberman over the measurements that really matter: his ability to improve one of the most troubled school systems in the nation.” The problem is that accepting the view that public affirmation of homosexuality doesn’t matter requires prior assent to the proposition that homosexual acts are moral acts.

I agree with the sentiment behind McQueary’s weary sigh over the “utter uselessness” of discussions with someone blind to reality and truth. I disagree with her, however, about which view of homosexuality embodies blindness.

The Christmas season is a popular time for families to go to the movies. To cash in on this opportunity, Hollywood typically releases a glut of films catering to every ticket-buying demographic. The week of Christmas, the PG-rated Marley & Me film was the top draw at the box office. Maybe Hollywood is starting to get the message that customers want more wholesome entertainment for their families.

The family-friendly Movieguide recently announced that in the past two decades, “the number of family movies has more than doubled and the number of movies with positive moral content has nearly quadrupled by 388 percent.” Moveguide founder and publisher Dr. Ted Baehr commented, “The surprising thing is, Movieguide’s top picks turn out to be among the most profitable films Hollywood produced during the year.”

Before you head to the movie theatre, visit Movieguide’s web site to read a family-friendly review of currently playing movies.

Just when I thought the insults were over regarding Christmas, Dane Placko of Fox 32 Chicago decided to make a trip to Springfield probably to cover all the turmoil surrounding Governor Rod Blagojevich‘s legal travails.  In a short piece aired on Fox last week, Placko in his “Sunday Sound Off” told viewers how something caught his eye as he was walking through the remaining Christmas displays in the Capitol Building Rotunda.  Low and behold, Placko was attracted to an object which is a celebration of nothing.

I’m talking about a “pole” that was put up by an 18 year-old Springfield man who lacked sensitivity, originality, and, most likely, supervision.  As reported in a Chicago Tribune story, the 18 year-old student who claims to be a member of the ACLU said he was bored and decided to put up a symbol to commemorate an episode of a long-canceled series, Seinfeld, which introduced the idea of a fictional holiday meant to take the place of Christmas and Hanukkah for those who simply needed something different.  In actuality, the character in the Seinfeld series was a spendthrift who felt the giving of presents was something he did not want to participate in.  Wait a minute. This is madness.  I’m talking about something that should have faded from the memory of most Americans who saw the show– and I’m not buying the fact that this 18 year-old (who was 9 or younger when the Seinfeld episode ran) has been celebrating this mythical “holiday” ever since.

The Springfield man wanted to use his “Festivus pole” to poke in the eyes of Christians and Jews who observe Christmas and Hanukkah.

You see, a Nativity scene, accompanied by a Menorah, a sign from some disgruntled out-of-state atheists, and the Secretary of State’s politically correct “holiday” tree had stood in the state Capitol up until a week before Placko’s visit.  However, Placko boldly proclaimed more people were having their pictures taken in front of the “Festivus pole” than any other of the remaining religious displays.  Now, either Placko didn’t know that a Nativity scene was visited by thousands during the Christmas season or he didn’t want to know.  Ignorance has never stopped the media before.  So why should it now?  But the Fox reporter could have turned around and asked one of the many Capitol Rotunda tour guides if the “Festivus pole” was indeed the most popular exhibit to stand in the Rotunda over the Christmas season.

Yes, I know this is ridiculous, but the Placko story is a microcosm illustrating the devolution of our culture.  Fox 32 Chicago ignored a very historic and positive religious image, but went out of their way to air a story on the mockery of such images.

There was also a message from the Sec. of State explaining to citizens why we must put up with this type of garbage.  Jesse White also had to allow a disparaging sign from a Madison, Wisconsin group to stand alongside the religious icons.  Placko got a laugh out of the “Festivus” display, which was simply a pole from a pool skimmer that was stuck inside a Christmas tree stand.  As stated in the Chicago Tribune story, the Sec. of State employee who took the 18 year-old’s application also thought the “Festivus pole” was extremely humorous and deserved a place within the Capitol Rotunda.

I suppose Placko’s reaction was par for the course because very few media sources from the Chicago area covered the Nativity scene which made history when it stood in the state Capitol from Dec. 2nd through Dec. 28th.  But WFLD-TV Chicago thought the mockery of serious holiday symbols was newsworthy, as did the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times, both of which failed to report on the Nativity scene unveiling, while highlighting the ill-placed pool skimmer.

I have some questions for Jesse White, Illinois’ Sec. of State, who has been very busy these days.  Can Illinois residents dump any garbage in the state Rotunda building, as long as they apply for a permit?  And especially if it’s around Christmas time…when the garbage would be sure to offend others?  Here’s an idea for Mr. White and his political brethren.  Perhaps I should apply for a permit that would highlight the need for a total cleaning of state government.  How about a mop and a bucket with a sign saying “Illinois deserves better”?   I wonder if the employee at Mr. White’s office would think that was so humorous.

On a recent episode of the Daily Show, Jon Stewart debated Mike Huckabee on the issue of legalized homosexual marriage-an oxymoron if ever there was one. (Click HERE to watch video.)

What is truly astonishing is that Jon Stewart’s debate performance has been widely lauded by homosexuals and their supporters as “brilliant” and “erudite”-a virtual intellectual sucker-punch to the ignorant masses whose views Huckabee represented.

I guess if one measures brilliance and erudition by an applause meter or by the number of words Stewart spoke as contrasted with the number Huckabee spoke, Stewart was brilliant and erudite. Let’s remember, though, that his audience is primarily NY liberals-hence the perfervid applause-and that talk show hosts always monopolize the conversation.

On the other hand, if one measures erudition by evidence of scholarship, it’s difficult from this brief debate to determine whether Stewart has studied any serious historians, political scientists, law professors, or theologians on this issue.

And if one measures brilliance by the quality of evidence provided for an argument, or its originality, or its soundness, it’s difficult to see why Stewart’s arguments were deemed “brilliant.”

Here are a few of the arguments whose brilliance evidently blinded Stewart’s viewers to their unsoundness:

Unsound Argument A:

Premise 1.  Laws banning interracial marriage were wrong.

Premise 2. Homosexuality is by nature the same as race.

Premise 3. Therefore, laws banning homosexual marriage are wrong.

False premise:

Homosexuality is the same as race: Homosexuality is ontologically different from race. Race is biologically determined and entails no behavioral implications whatsoever, and therefore is not amenable to moral assessment. There is no research proving that homosexual impulses are biologically determined, and no matter what causes homosexual impulses, attractions, or thoughts, homosexual conduct is volitional and therefore amenable to moral judgment. Many behaviors that may be shaped to some degree by biological factors are immoral. It is both erroneous and dangerous to suggest that the presence of biological influences renders behaviors automatically moral.

Unsound Argument B:

Premise 1. Access to civil marriage is an unconditional civil right.

Premise 2. All adults are entitled to all civil rights.

Premise 3. Homosexuals are prohibited from accessing civil marriage.

Conclusion 4. Therefore homosexuals are being unjustly denied their civil rights.

False premises:

Access to civil marriage is a civil right: Marriage or access to marriage is not a civil right. And civil marriage is an institution the joining of which should be limited by those criteria central to its nature. In other words, marriage pre-exists the state. It has a particular objective nature. The state’s task is to ascertain which criteria are central to marriage and then protect and preserve those criteria.

Access to civil marriage is unconditional: Access to marriage is conditional upon meeting a number of criteria including being the opposite sex of one’s partner.

Homosexuals are prohibited from accessing civil marriage: All adults may get marry as long as they fulfill the criteria that society has deemed essential to marriage, which pertain to number of partners, minimum age, consanguinity (i.e., blood kinship), and sexual complementarity.

Polyamorists are prohibited from changing the criterion related to number of partners. Pedophiles are prohibited from changing the criterion related to minimum age. Incestuous couples are prohibited from changing the criterion related to consanguinity. And homosexuals are prohibited from changing the criterion related to sexual complementarity.

Unsound Argument C:

Premise 1. Concepts or views of marriage are always changing. (Implied)

Premise 2. Change is always good.

Conclusion: Therefore, changing the legal definition of marriage to include homosexuals is good.

False premises:

Concepts or views of marriage are always changing: There is remarkable stability throughout recorded history on the complementary nature of marriage even in societies that allowed polygamy.

Change is always good: Sometimes change is foolish, evil, and destructive.

Unsound Argument D:

Premise 1. The government’s sole or central interest in and involvement with marriage is to support romantic love between people.

Premise 2. Homosexual partners experience romantic love.

Conclusion: Therefore, the government should permit homosexual couples to marry.

False Premises:

The government is centrally concerned with supporting love: The government is not centrally concerned with love. It is centrally concerned with supporting the type of relationship into which children may be born and which best serves the needs of children, because this type of relationship best serves the good of society.

Invalid Argument:

Therefore, the government should permit homosexual couples to marry: Even if it were true that the government’s sole reason for involving itself in marriage were to support romantic love between people, and even if it were true that homosexual couples experience romantic love, it does not automatically follow that the government should permit homosexual couples to marry. Even a government that is centrally concerned with supporting romantic love-which ours is not-need not sanction all relationships whose partners experience romantic love.

Perhaps you missed it, after all, there was that story about Tiger being in the proverbial woods regarding a late night Thanksgiving crash.  The story about this world famous golfer and his possible extramarital affairs have filled the airwaves to the point of absurdity.  And then, of course, there were the reality show wannabes who participated in a crash of their own, except their incident didn’t involve a car.  The couple sashayed in to a state dinner at the White House without an invitation.  This story has also received a ridiculous amount of coverage by the mainstream media to the point where legislators are now calling for special hearings concerning the matter.  I guess this is more of our tax dollars well spent.  Here’s a crazy idea: Arrest the two gate crashers, hit them with a heavy fine, and possibly tack on some jail time to boot.

In the midst of this madness, a case regarding an Ohio man who assaulted a Salvation Army bell ringer and stole a collection kettle containing an estimated $700 seemed to have been lost in the ether.  An Associated Press article reported Shawn Krieger, 44, of Toledo was arrested and being held on numerous charges related to the theft.  Toledo authorities say more charges may be pending because Krieger–after stealing the Salvation Army collection kettle–left the scene in a stolen car which was later recovered.

What struck me most about this incident is while Krieger was acting like the Grinch on steroids, as he ran away with his ill-gotten booty, he shouted out, “I hate Christmas.”  So, let’s see.  Krieger may be facing charges including assault, robbery, and auto theft, but nowhere in the coverage of this crime spree did I see a reference to Krieger’s actions being called a hate crime.

Now let’s face it.  If Krieger had robbed and assaulted two lesbians and, during his get away, screamed “I hate f _ _ _!”, the lead story in the media would have been titled “man charged with a hate crime against “gay” couple.”  But why do attacks on Christians or Christian places of worship not fall into the hate crime category?  Is our society sending a message, saying it is open season on those who believe in Christ?  Brenda Webb, who was the victim of Krieger’s alleged attack, again took up her role collecting donations for the Salvation Army in Maumee, a suburb of Toledo, the next day.  Webb is reported as saying she hoped Krieger gets the help he needs.  To me, it sounds like Krieger needs to be helped right into jail.  However, his alleged victim is certainly acting in a Christlike manner and she should be commended for doing so.

But every Christmas season either attacks on Christians or Christian symbols seem to increase.  Indeed, Christians seem to be excluded as victims of hate crimes when they are targeted because of their faith throughout the year.  Yet there has been little response from federal legislators or state lawmakers regarding the rash of anti-Christian sentiment sweeping the country.  Those who constantly remind us that religion should be separated from the actions of the state are not telling us Christians should be separated from the protection of the state, are they?  It certainly seems to be the case.

In a story I wrote for IFI, on August 15, 2007, titled, Are Christians victims of hate crimes? Urbana Police apparently say ‘no’, I detailed how a number of Christian churches in Urbana, Illinois had been vandalized or defaced with graffiti.  Yet authorities in that community did not consider the vandalism of those Christian places of worship as possible hate crimes.  But I suppose attacks on Jews in 1930’s Germany were not considered hate crimes either.  It took the Nuremburg trials after the allies defeated the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler to finally cite Hitler’s madness as crimes against humanity.

Of course, I am not comparing an attack of a Salvation Army bell ringer to the Holocaust.  But when a group is excluded from the list of those protected by the law, it often demarks the beginning of a slippery slope.

I am not a supporter of hate crime laws.  I do not know of anyone who can look into the mind or heart of an individual to determine their motive.  However, the U.S. Constitution says the law should be applied equally to everyone living in America and the last I heard Christians possessed the same rights as any other group.

I certainly hope Mr. Krieger gets what’s coming to him under the law, if he is indeed guilty of the charges facing him.  But someone needs to explain to me how an individual committing a crime against a Christian while screaming “I hate Christmas” isn’t a hate crime.  I guess I’ll leave that question to be pondered by greater thinkers than I.

With the recent Oligarchic decision in California to overturn that state’s ban on homosexual marriage, the State Journal-Register again revealed their radical bias, hypocrisy and outright intolerance toward people of faith.

The Springfield State Journal-Register (SJ-R) owes an apology to the hundreds of thousands of Illinois citizens whose consciences, tenets of faith, and common sense compels them to stand for natural marriage.

Once again, editorial cartoonist Chris Britt and the SJ-R published a false and malicious depiction of IFI and anyone who would stand in defense of the historic definition of marriage.

You can also email Mr. Broadbooks directly at at jon.broadbooks@sj-r.com or call him at (217)788-1500. To contact Mr. Britt, send an email to chris.britt@sj-r.com.

Here is what veteran pro-life, pro-family advocate Arlene Sawicki had to say:

I find highly offensive the May 18th cartoon in the State-Journal Registrar aimed at the Illinois Family Institute and those who support the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. Here we have a prime example of twisted, liberal journalistic license used to malign the constitutional liberties of a Christian organization championing the time-honored definition and Divine purpose of marriage.

In their minds, only the IFI “discriminates!!” That’s downright hypocritical and laughable!

This insult calls for our quick counter-action. I am proposing that Christians throughout the State of Illinois make their protests known. The “voice of the people” needs to be heard loud and clear. According to the Constitution of Illinois, “same-sex marriage” is ILLEGAL — and with the help of its voting citizens, it will remain so.

Arlene is absolutely correct — just who is the real phobic here? In an attempt to condemn us for our politically incorrect opposition to counterfeit marriage, Britt himself commits the politically correct offense of anti-religious bigotry, or maybe what some would call moralityphobia.

I guess intolerance is a right exclusively reserved for liberals by liberals.

Long ago, in the book, “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s,” two homosexual activists and marketing professionals strategized that if they were to succeed in implementing their agenda, they would need to demonize Christians.

Perhaps they underestimated how easy it would be to get the media to do their dirty work for them.

I just turned 54 years of age and my memories of pornography are very vague. The simple fact is when I was in my rambunctious years–which I would say lasted from late adolescence until my late 20’s–pornography was not a big deal. To tell the truth, porn was more myth than substance to many. Sure, there were the obligatory bachelor parties where someone brought in a grainy 8MM film of some forlorn creature of God who was talked into participating in a demeaning process. These certainly weren’t the “girls next door.” At least most of us thought so.

In fact, I probably never saw a porn video until I was in my 30’s and technology made these videos available for home use. Whether it was VHS or Beta, in the beginning, many video stores had a dark corner reserved for this material. As far as pornography in magazine form, there were your sleazy bookstores, usually located in the worst neighborhoods. However, one could buy a Playboy from behind the counter of your local convenience store. There seemed to be a legitimate effort to keep this material away from children–even though what most of us would now consider tame, was met by strong resistance from the pro-family community. Pornography in books and magazines has always been there though Hugh Hefner and Playboy magazine introduced this mode of voyeurism into the public mainstream in the mid 1950’s. Some historians say pornography dates back thousands of years to ancient Egypt to the Persian Empire and more.

In the United States, pornography truly hit the ground running in the 1980’s. The sexual revolution (which began a little more than a decade past) and cable television acted like rocket fuel regarding the take-off of pornography. People could now sit at home in privacy and watch what previously lurked in the dark recesses of their imagination. Attending X or triple X-rated films outside the home was left to men wearing raincoats as they slithered into cheap porno palaces in the seedier parts of town.

How things have changed in a little over a quarter century. Today pornography is a multibillion dollar business. Indeed, some porno stars are well-known figures to those who follow the trade. In fact, actors–if you can call them that–have obtained celebrity status to some. And radio jocks, includingHoward Stern promote the sex industry at every turn. With the touch of a button, you can watch the most salacious offerings at home and in the finest hotels on the road. Pornography has truly made its way into the mainstream of American consciousness.

Yet with this new dedication to observing of the prurient has come a steep price. According to Family Safe Media 60 million people in the U.S. admitted to purposely visiting Internet porn sites this year (70% indicate that they keep their online porn use a secret). There are over 4.2 million known separate and distinct porn web sites on the Internet, with 2,500 new sites coming online every week. According to Family Safe Media, the largest demographic accessing pornography on the Internet is the 12 to 17 year age group.

These statistics–which come from the year 2006–most certainly are out of date. By now, the number of those involved with pornography has increased dramatically.

In 2006, worldwide revenues from the sale of pornography totaled nearly $100 billion as tabulated by Top Ten Reviews. Taken from 2006 figures, China leads the way, spending $27.4 billion–which was 28% of revenue earned by the pornography industry worldwide. South Korea was second, spending $25.73 billion. Surprisingly, Japan came in third in the pornography spending spree with $19.98 billion and, finally, the U.S. tallied $13.33 billion in dollars spent on pornography. The pornography industry earns more than all the top high-tech companies combined. Porn brings in more cash worldwide than Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo!, Apple, Netflix and EarthLink.

But the highest cost pornography may levy–which cannot be calculated–is on our society. Yet sociologists, psychologists and many other health professionals believe pornography is responsible for the increase in child molestation by adults and siblings, the increase in sexual assault and murder against women, and the break up of the traditional family. The Federal Bureau of Investigation says, at any given time, from 30 to 60 serial killers are at large in the United States. This figure has drastically increased since the 1980’s and many criminologists draw a direct link between pornography and violent crimes against women.

When facing the electric chair near the end of his life, Ted Bundy said pornography played an integral part in his twisted psychosocial development and led to his hatred of the fair sex.

Take-Two Interactive, the parent company of Rockstar Games referring to itself as ‘the purveyors of video gaming pleasure’, has done it again, releasing another video game that contains extreme sexual and violent content.

Take-Two is anticipating $400 million in sales in just one week with its anticipated release of Grand Theft Auto IV tomorrow, April 29th. The Entertainment Software Rating Board (“ESRB”) rates this game an “M” for “Mature”, appropriate for ages 17 and up. Retailers are not required to enforce these ratings when making sales.

Beyond the intense violence, blood and mayhem, during the game the character can have sex with prostitutes, visit adult clubs, request a private lap dance and drive drunk.

The Timothy Plan, a morally responsible family of mutual funds, refuses to invest in companies like Take-Two Interactive because of their involvement in the anti-family entertainment and pornography industry. Arthur Ally, President of the Timothy Plan says, “This $30 billion a year entertainment business is exploiting sex and violence more than ever in their products. We hope more parents will not continue to fall into a category that four out of ten often do by relying simply on the ESRB rating and leave their children alone while they are playing video games.”

Not intended for anyone under 18yrs old, many “unintended” children will no doubt find a way to obtain Grand Theft Auto IV.

“While the ESRB system is a step in the right direction, the ratings are confusing and incomplete at best”, Ally says.

Mr. Ally refers to the Rockstar game, Bully: Scholarship Education, which was released in March, revolving around a mischievous schoolboy and includes several scenes where the main character describes other boys as “hot” and himself as a “totally awesome kisser” after kissing other boys. Bully currently has an ESRB “Teen” rating, appropriate for ages 13 and up.

When most Americans hear the term “New Age” they might think of a little boutique that sells cotton caftans, CDs of sitar music, and multicolored assortments of crystals. It all seems to point to dubious fashion sense and outdated home decor, but nothing ominous, nothing harmful. Yet, in reality, the New Age movement has had a serious negative impact on many unsuspecting people.

People who have never set foot inside a New Age store, people who would laugh at the thought of pretty rocks containing healing powers — these same people are enthusiastically and blindly embracing dangerous New Age philosophies, all because of their admiration and devotion to the powerful and popular woman who is advancing these beliefs.

Who has become the High Priestess of the New Age Movement? Who is this woman who commands the respect of millions, whose stamp of approval can make or break a book, movie, or political candidate? She is the host of the highest rated talk show in television history, a magazine publisher, and an Academy Award nominated actress. She is Chicago’s very own, Oprah Winfrey.

Oprah Winfrey has been described as the richest African-American of the 20th century, the most philanthropic African-American of all time, the world’s only black billionaire — and perhaps most tellingly — the most influential woman in the world.

Oprah definitely has influence. Her television talk show, The Oprah Winfrey Show, is seen weekly by an audience of 49 million viewers in the United States. Additionally, millions more worldwide watch Oprah in the 117 countries in which her show is broadcast. With apologies to Madison Avenue and E. F. Hutton, when Oprah talks, people listen. And what Oprah’s audience is hearing now is her ringing endorsement of Eckhart Tolle’s book, A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose.

Virtually everyone in America knows Oprah’s name, and most are familiar with her daily television program. But many are unaware of the depth of the spiritual lies she is promoting, and how many needy people are buying this false hope through Oprah’s celebrity. Please watch the following video to get a better idea of the lies she is selling her audience (you can also click this link):

While Oprah has professed to be a Christian, the principles in Tolle’s book are definitely not based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. In keeping with the subtitle of the book, the reader is encouraged to be “focused on the purpose of your Being here on earth.” Not surprisingly, nowhere does Tolle’s vision of one’s life purpose have anything in common with man’s purpose in relationship to God, certainly not as it is expressed in the Westminster Shorter Catechism. The very first question of the catechism asks: “What is the chief end of man?” and the answer is: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” Revelation 4:11 and 1 Peter 2:9 beautifully support the veracity of this historic church document. Nothing in Scripture even remotely supports Tolle’s contentions.

Tolle asserts that there is no death; that in fact man does not have a life, but he is life. Clearly this statement completely denies the truth of God’s Word found in John 14:6, as Jesus tells Thomas, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” As Christians we know that “he who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” 1 John 5:12

In light of Scriptural Truth, what kind of life can Tolle claim?

A New Earth does acknowledge the existence of God/god, but not God as any Christian would recognize Him. Tolle envisions his god, not as an entity in a particular place, but as “the essence, the intelligence, the animating life essence behind all life forms.” This essence does not appear to include a Son, for again, there is no mention of Jesus, the Son of God.

As a self-proclaimed Christian, how can Oprah countenance this false teaching? Even more troubling, how can she continue to promote such false teaching, knowing that millions of people look to her and are influenced by her words and viewpoints? Sadly, Oprah seems to have left the narrow path that leads to righteousness and, instead, she has started down the broad road that leads to destruction.

Oprah has publicly denied on her television program that Jesus, as the Son of God, is the only way to God (John 14:6). In her mind, there couldn’t possibly be just one way, but rather many diverse ways to God. In taking this position, she has rejected the authority of the Word of the Living God and embraced the distortions and lies of New Age charlatans and false teachers. Rather than Lord and Savior, Christ has become for Oprah “a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall.” (1 Peter 8a) These New Age lies she promotes are deadly!

Oprah believes that God does not govern the affairs of mankind, nor does she believe in sin, the devil — but rather that “we are our own saviors” (directly contradicting Luke 9:23, which Jesus says; “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” [emphsis added]). On her hit talk show, she has openly expressed her opposition to Jesus as being the true savior.

Earlier this year, her friend Marianne Williamson began teaching the 365 lessons from the New Age Bible, A Course in Miracles, on Oprah’s XM Satellite Radio. Page 147 of the Course Text teaches that we are “God”: “The recognition of God is the recognition of yourself.”

Oprah has also promoted the New Age book The Secret by Rhonda Byrne. Page 164 in The Secret states: “You are God in a physical body.”

And now, Oprah is launching an online course with metaphysical teacher Eckhart Tolle based on his book The New Earth: Awakening to Your Soul’s Purpose. In Tolle’s earlier book, The Power of Now, he teaches blasphemy — claiming that we are “God.”

While Oprah is free to believe whatever she wants, it is horrifying that so many souls are being led astray as they follow her lead. This incredibly influential woman could be a powerful ambassador for Christ, but instead, she is being used by Satan to peddle the “spiritual crack” of New Age teaching that leads to addiction, death, and eternal damnation.

As Christ’s return draws closer, we must stand firm in our faith, sure in what we believe and know to be true. Paul’s charge to Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:2-5 is a charge to Christ followers today as well:

“preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”

Brothers and sisters in Christ, we are called to bear witness to the Truth of the Gospel in our circles of influence. Unlike Oprah, we may not be able to reach millions, but by the power and grace of God, we can reach out in obedience, confidence, and faith to the people who He places in our lives.

For years, when talking about the media, what came to mind was television, radio, and movies. Average Americans had few personal opportunities at media exposure through these venues, and the ‘lucky few’ who received their so-called 15 minutes of fame often did so via a local news camera seeking their comment on a terrible accident or a horrific crime. Possibly, a friend knew a friend who was on a game show where fabulous gifts and prizes could be won by simply giving the correct answer to an unimportant trivia question. But America is a very different place today, I’m sure, to the consternation of media personalities from every genre.

With the click of a mouse and the aid of a computer, millions have become journalists, reporters, media critics, etc., etc., etc. With the help of online sites like YouTube and My Space, anyone with a camcorder can be the star of a three-minute video or an elaborate production which can rival some of the things coming out of Hollywood — very good and very bad. However, rarely has cyberspace been used for positive reasons, in my opinion. Or perhaps the bad stuff on YouTube and My Space gets all the attention while the good things are ignored or not publicized and this creates a negative image in the minds of some who see the Internet as a breeding ground for all social ills.

In January of 2007, I wrote a column for the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) titled, “Haunted by the Decision to Abort, A Personal Reflection on the Issue.” In the piece, with the help of my wife, Julie, I tried to explain how our decision to abort a child nearly 30 years ago has had a traumatic impact on our lives ever since. That column has come a long way. A version of it first ran in the now-defunct Christian Coalition magazine under a different title. After that, I rewrote the column for the Illinois Leader (a former Internet news service) to address another issue — how the decision to abort affects men.

Each time I updated the column, it had a profound impact on me and my wife. It continues to be a cathartic experience which we hope will educate others as to the heartbreak abortion can bring to a family. In our case, it was a family of two, which concentrated the impact of our “choice” like a laser beam which bored into our psyche for years, until we found relief through Christ’s salvation.

I had hoped the column served others as it had served us, and many readers told us it had. But recently, the Internet — what I once thought was a wasteland strewn with the dark images of forlorn people — became something different to me. You see, my Pastor was conducting a series of sermons on many of the social issues which impact our culture every day. One of his sermons was to be about abortion. So, I sent him the third version of the column I had written for IFI over a year ago. The Pastor felt others needed to hear our testimony so we videotaped a session with him about the abortion my wife and I had when we were in our mid-20’s.

It is truly amazing how the Lord can use a singular moment, when I put down my first thoughts about our decision to abort, up until today, when the Lord is still using our tragedy to help others. The testimony Julie and I gave can now be seen on YouTube.

What also became clear to me — after this latest effort to share–was how God can use any technology to help get His word to His people. Therefore, the Internet is not a place we should cede to dark forces. It can be much more than a place for pornography or the sexual abuse of children and every other form of depravity known to man. The Internet can be — and has been — a tool where the positive things in life can also be extolled. It can be a place where we can share our experiences, good and bad, to help make the lives of others better.

The Illinois Family Institute has been using the Internet in this positive mode for years. But, at times, it seems as though the good simply gets buried by an avalanche of evil images. This can make the most positive of us jaded or depressed about the potential of new technology.

I hope many of you will tune in to YouTube to see our testimony about abortion, even if the act does not seem to have an impact on your life. The truth is, abortion affects us all. However, until our society understands the level of trauma abortion has wrought on our culture, the practice will never disappear.

No, a column on the Illinois Family Institute’s web site and an interview on YouTube will not relieve us of the guilt we suffered due to our decision to abort a child many years ago. Only the Lord, through His vessel of forgiveness, had that power. But we hope the ability to share our thoughts on the subject will save another man or woman from going through unnecessary pain and, more important, allow an unborn child to live the life God meant him or her to live.

NOTE: Both Julie and I would like to express our thanks to Pastor Dustin Fulton, Jefferson Street Christian Church in Lincoln, and the Illinois Family Institute for giving us the chance to share.

A review of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” (opening in theaters April 18)

April 7, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com/CWA) – There’s a shakeup in the cult of neo-Darwinist pseudo-science, and that endearing, monotone high school teacher of “Ferris Bueller” fame is doing the shaking.

With his new feature documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” (opening in theaters April 18), Ben Stein – actor, economist, presidential speechwriter, and all around really smart guy – squares off with some of the world’s most prominent anti-theist elites as he gets to the heart of the question, “Who are we, and how did we get here?”

This is not your father’s documentary. “Expelled” rocks the house both literally and figuratively. It’s gripping, music-packed, comically wry and always entertaining. But its entertainment value is yet surpassed by its educational merit. Throughout the film, Stein boldly shines a light of honest inquiry, revealing time and again that Evolution’s Emperor has no clothes. In his trademark deadpan fashion, Stein skillfully debunks the dogmatic neo-Darwinist programming we’ve all had relentlessly rammed down our throats ever since “Big Science” went bananas over that cute little Scopes Monkey.

Unlike Michael Moore’s anti-Bush propaganda flick “Fahrenheit 911” – which sold us a lemon with deceptive editing techniques and staged confrontations – “Expelled” is intellectually honest, cerebrally stimulating, and delectably provocative.

Nonetheless, there are those who won’t like it, not one little bit.

Enter Richard Dawkins. Dawkins, a prominent evolutionist, outspoken atheist and the best-selling author of “The God Delusion,” is featured throughout the film. In one segment, he sits down with Stein for a heart-to-heart. After dancing around several pointed questions about how life began, Dawkins finds himself at a logical impasse with no surplus of sci-fi rhetoric. He’s finally forced to concede that, indeed, an intelligent being may have created life on earth. However, that being could not have been “God,” but rather, it must have been some organic, alien life form. Of course, that alien life form has to have been a product of “Darwinian evolution.”

Through tears of wild laughter, audience members watch as Dawkins – apparently grasping the dizzying nature of his own circular argument – turns three shades of red and becomes purply tight-lipped.

Dawkins?… Dawkins?…

But apart from space aliens, the general consensus among the evolutionary scientists interviewed was that all life, including human life, likely began when lightening struck a mud puddle (you know, like Frankenstein but without all the prefab body parts). This was then followed by a series of unexplainable, unprovable, and totally random events that occurred over umpteen million years, eventually resulting in…you.

Although “Expelled” indirectly makes a strong case for the scientific theory of intelligent design, its primary message drives home the need for academic freedom, intellectual honesty, and open debate on all scientific fronts.

As the movie masterfully illustrates, we live in a cultural climate where secular elitists in academia, the media, and the courts chew up and spit out anyone who dares to question the gospel according to Charles Darwin. They’re absolutely terrified to follow the scientific evidence wherever it may lead.

They don’t want to upset the morally relative applecart, which is loosely held together by the notion that we’re all just a bunch of monkeys with an instinctive, biological excuse for all our behavioral choices. To them, life’s a whole lot easier under the theory of evolution. Without a sovereign Creator to answer to, we get to scoot along and party hearty, free from accountability.

Consequently, it’s no wonder “Expelled” has Darwin’s disciples scurrying for the shadows. Those secular humanist one-trick-ponies in the media, throughout academia, on the blogosphere, and elsewhere are in full damage control. They’re doing everything possible to discredit the film before it even opens. It’s even been reported that two major networks are refusing to cover the movie (Gotta love that journalistic objectivity).

So, if you happen to be one of those evolutionary fundamentalists who were “randomly selected” to evolve with a built-in blindfold and earplugs, and you’re comfy with your very limited worldview, be afraid of this film – be very afraid. However, if you’re willing to have your eyes opened and are interested in looking at all the evidence, then suck it up, wipe away that Darwinian Kool-Aid mustache and hang out with Ben Stein for a night. What do you have to lose?

For everyone else, “Expelled” is a must-see. If you’re already a person of faith, prepare to have your faith strengthened. And even if you’re not, you can’t possibly walk away without at least admitting that the debate over who we are and how we got here is far from over.

So hold on to your hat. “Expelled” is nothing short of earthshaking. And, as the scientific community clearly recognizes, its tremors may be felt for some years to come.