The New York Times has embarked on an effort to rewrite the history of the United States as a nation built upon slavery.  Calling it the “1619 Project,” the opening article is a whopping 7,600-word effort to look at 18th Century history through a liberal 21^stcentury lens.  Joshua Lawson has written an excellent rebuttal to this effort in The Federalist.  Because much of the NYT’s ideology is already being inserted into the narrative of schools and universities, I wanted to pass along some portions of this important article for your consideration.

No, America Wasn’t Built On Slavery, But Faith That All Men Are Created Equal

The year 1619 was chosen for the Times’ “re-founding” to mark when the first slaves arrived in the English settlement of Jamestown.

Slavery was a heart-wrenching, obstacle during America’s birth, but by no objective analysis was it the central factor of the founding as the 1619 Project claims.

Slavery was and is an abomination. It is an evil part of America’s past—as well as that of nearly every nation on earth. The fact that slavery has a universal heritage does not absolve American slave owners, but it does provide a necessary historical context.

During the 17th century, slavery was, sadly, an accepted part of life throughout the world. By A.D. 1619, slavery had existed for more than 5000 years, dating back at least to Mesopotamia.

Written by Nikole Hannah-Jones, the 7,600-word flagship essay of the 1619 Project asserts that “our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written.”   Hannah-Jones claims, “white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst.” She provides no evidence or examples for this sweeping assertion.

Jefferson’s original final draft of the Declaration explicitly referred to black slaves not as property but as men.  Letters written to John Jay show Alexander Hamilton hoping the Revolutionary War could lead to the emancipation of blacks and appraising them equal to whites in their abilities. Additional examples are plentiful.

The Founders were painfully aware of the cognitive dissonance of forming a nation under the proclamation that all were created equal while maintaining slavery. They also had to face the political reality that the 13 colonies could not be united in a new nation if they immediately abolished slavery.

With no other way to obtain the necessary support for unity and ratification, the Founders spitefully tolerated slavery’s existence, while also placing it on a path to extinction. Once the nation secured independence, American statesman of the Founding Era slashed away at slavery as quickly as prudence and political reality would allow.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 prohibited slavery in the territory that would become the states of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. In 1794, Congress barred American ships from engaging in the slave trade. Additional legislation in 1780 banned Americans from employment or investment in the international slave trade. Finally, the U.S. Congress officially banned the importation of slaves beginning on January 1, 1808, the earliest date allowed under the deal made to ratify the Constitution.

Far from the bastion of racism, hate and pro-slavery sentiment that the 1619 Project portrays, much of the United States was ahead of the world in ending the horror of slavery.  Shortly after the signing of the Declaration, northern states took the lead. By 1804, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania had passed laws that immediately or gradually abolished slavery.

If the American Founding was grounded in slavery, and the Founders didn’t believe a word of the opening of the Declaration, how does one account for these actions?

According to Hannah-Jones, one of the “primary reasons” Americans declared independence was to preserve slavery, fearful of the “growing calls” to abolish the slave trade in London. However, a closer look shows the abolitionist movement didn’t have a truly organized presence in England until 1783 when the first petition was filed by Quakers. It wasn’t until 1787 that the influential Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded.

The 1619 Project is politically driven 2020 posturing dressed in the veneer of a historical “exposé.” By warping history, it hopes that dopamine hits of anger and injustice will prevent readers from engaging in objective analysis. Just in time to paint America as racist for the upcoming presidential election.

Leftists are banking that the outrage caused by the 1619 Project will provide them the political capital required to move to the next stage: a full reconfiguration of America into their image.

America does not need further tribal rhetoric tearing up what little societal cohesion remains. The nation certainly doesn’t benefit from Times writers conducting a growing chorus of anger and grievance.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

It was announced a week ago that the bizarre hate crime of which actor Jussie Smollett alleges he was a victim and the subsequent clean-up of his mess by incompetent fixer State’s Attorney Kim Foxx is going to be investigated by a special prosecutor. This turn of events reminded me of yard signs. On your leisurely summer walks, have you seen those yard signs that cropped up all over Illinois and other states over the past three years—you know, the ones with the banal expression “HATE HAS NO HOME HERE”? Who could disagree with such a statement, and, therefore, why a yard sign? Well, there’s text and then there’s subtext and history. The text expresses an important idea commonly held. So, why make a yard sign to announce a commonplace verity to every passerby every day for three years? Ah, now we come to the subtext, but first the fascinating history that the mainstream press did a very poor job illuminating.

On November 15, 2016, exactly one week after the election of President Donald Trump, NBC News Chicago reported that bisexual student Taylor Volk, then a senior at the purportedly Christian North Park University, said she had received two anonymous emails and a note taped to her door that contained “homophobic slurs,” “harassing, threatening language” and references to Trump. Volk further claimed that such occurrences were a “nationwide epidemic.”

Just three days later, on November 18, it was breathlessly reported that six social justice warriors (actually seven) from the North Park neighborhood had already created the yard signs. Kurt Peterson, Barbara Nordlund, Steven Velez Luce, Megan Trinter, Carmen Rodriguez, Jeanne Marie Olson, and Catherine Korda were the eager, hate-hating beavers who had yard signs ready to go just three days after the traumatized Volk was interviewed by the press.

But then things took an unexpected turn, though why it was unexpected is surprising.

A week after Volk’s story made the news, an investigation revealed her entire story was—wait for it—a hoax. But “progressives” can’t let either a crisis or a hoax go to waste. Gotta mine even hoaxes for propaganda gold. So, with very little press on the hoax, the gang of seven were able to disseminate their banal, virtue-signaling yard signs around the country and even the world, although oddly the website doesn’t mention the hoax in the group’s background myth.

Now for the subtext or subtexts. While the text suggests that community members reject hatred—which most community members in most communities do—the subtext coming on the heels of Volk’s Hoax is that Trump is a hater, that those who voted for him (you know, the “deplorables”) are haters, and that those who disagree with the arguable assumptions of  “progressives” on immigration or the “LGBTQ” ideology are haters.

These yard signs are the neighborhood equivalent of “safe space” stickers that regressive public school teachers/activists affix to their desks and regressive corporate employees affix to their desks and cubicle dividers. These yard signs and stickers are cunning strategic devices. First, they are political announcements masquerading as noble humanitarian gestures. Second, their absence implies that community members, teachers, or corporate employees with naked yards, desks, cubicles, or offices are insufficiently “woke,” unsafe, intolerant, bigoted haters. And so, “progressive” mission accomplished.

Safety and hatred, like tolerance, ignorance, bigotry, and equality, have been redefined. Now safety refers to and requires the affirmation of “progressive” assumptions about immigration and about the nature and morality of homosexual acts and cross-sex impersonation. And hatred refers to the affirmation of conservative assumptions about immigration and the nature and morality of homosexual acts and cross-sex impersonation.

The next time a “progressive” starts caterwauling that conservatives are divisive, remember what “progressives” do. They actually threaten and attack conservatives. They continually spread the poisonous lie to immigrants and members of the “LGBTQ” community—including children and teens—that those who hold conservative moral and political beliefs hate them. And they concoct hateful, divisive hoaxes to foment more “progressive” hatred.

Here’s a list of hoaxes alleging anti-“gay” and/or racist incidents. I’m sure government schoolteachers will be covering these in their unit on political hoaxes. Taylor Volk was right. There is an epidemic—an epidemic of Leftist hoaxes designed to spread hatred of conservatives:

Jussie Smollett can’t block special prosecutor in alleged hate hoax case, judge rules (New York Daily News)

Jackson gay rights leader accused of burning down own home (The Detroit News)

Student Charged with Making Anti-Gay Threats against Herself (National Review)

Christian college student lied about harassment from Trump supporters (Gay Star News)

A black student wrote those racist messages that shook the Air Force Academy, school says (The Washington Post)

Lesbian couple accused of faking hate crime (KDVR.com)

Whole Foods: ‘Anti-Gay Cake’ a Hoax (Daily Beast)

Racist, anti-LGBT flier found outside Dallas nightclub appears to be hoax (DallasNews.com)

Woman sentenced to 90 days for hate-crime hoax (Wisconsin Gazette)

Was ‘Relentlessly Gay’ Homeowner’s Fundraiser Just A Hoax? (HuffPost)

‘I don’t want to die!’: Leading gay ‘marriage’ activist in Ohio faked his own abduction (LifeSiteNews)

Anti-gay hate crime at University of North Dakota fraternity deemed a hoax (The Washington Times)

Tennessee lesbian couple faked hate crime and destroyed own home with arson for insurance claim, jury rules (Daily News)

Man faked homophobic threats and firebombing, Utah police say (CNN)

Owner admits setting fire to gay nightclub in Oak Park (ABC7Chicago.com)

Transgender teen girl admits lying about sexual assault ‘hate crime’ in high school bathroom (LifeSiteNews.com)

Man who claimed he was beaten for being gay admits he made it all up after police receive video of him hitting HIS OWN head after back-flipping off a curb (Daily Mail)

Lesbian Waitress Exits Job After Anti-Gay Tipping Hoax (ABCNews)

A Branded Man (Townhall.com)

Why Would A Gay Teenager Commit Hate Crimes Against Herself? (BuzzFeed)

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Hate-Hoaxes-have-a-home…..mp3

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Several days ago, I took Tucker Carlson—a self-identifying Christian—to my teeny tiny virtual woodshed for congratulating homosexual Democratic strategist Richard Goodstein on his God-mocking, soul-destroying pseudo-marriage. Well, now I’m offering Carlson a hearty virtual pat on the back for Thursday night’s segment with Mark Steyn to whom I offer a bone-rattling pat on the back. Here’s an excerpt from their discussion of the loathsome Leftist tactic to oppress dissenters through control of language:

Steyn: “We have this immense cleansing of language. And [Leftists] are playing for big game here. I noticed about a decade ago, the government of Spain removed the words “mother” and “father” from its birth certificates and replaced them with “progenitor A” and “progenitor B”…. The fact is the abolition of “mother” and “father” is actually quite a big thing. And the Left is clever about this. They play for big prizes. One of the reasons I despair about the political Right is because we get all ‘Oohhh yeah, we’re trying to get a cut in capital gains tax through Congress!’ Meanwhile [Leftists] are abolishing the sexes. They’re ABOLISHING THE SEXES! That’s incredible!”

Carlson: “They’re re-ordering the natural order…. And the rest of us are either still playing these dumb low-stakes grievance politics… or arguing… the capital gains rate as if that really matters, because it doesn’t. Meanwhile no one’s getting married. The kids are all born out of wedlock. And  society collapses.”

Steyn: “One of the problems is… the Right gets head-faked into playing on the Left’s terms, in part because the Left changes the meaning of all the words, so you end up saying the same nonsense as the Left. People now can have their careers ruined because they ‘misgender’ someone on Twitter. We shouldn’t concede these things lightly…. This is actually industrial scale Orwellianism where you’re precisely inverting the meaning of language… so that people can’t even discuss certain topics anymore.”

Carlson: “When we give up these battles over words, we give up autonomy.”

I have long argued that there is no greater threat to our First Amendment protections than that posed by “LGBTQQAP” fascists. I have specifically said—and taken flak from RINOs for doing so—that the reductively called social issues are far more important than tax rates. And I have said countless times that under no circumstances should conservatives capitulate to language diktats. Do not ever mis-sex cross-sex masqueraders. Do not ever use pronouns that don’t match biological sex.

I would quibble with Steyn on one word. He said, “we shouldn’t concede these things lightly.” I would argue that we shouldn’t concede these things—period. It is neither loving nor “woke” to concede to the language edicts of the science-denying “trans” cult. (Pssst, come closer—you may also say “tr*nny,” just not on Facebook or the FB Overlords will come in the dark of night and throw you in the slammer.)

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Tucker-4.mp3

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

A conservative meme circulating on Facebook recently asserted that a dystopian future isn’t in the future. It’s now and we’re living it.

For theologically orthodox Christians, and others who want to stay grounded in reality, the West has rapidly become a disorienting place to live. So a surreal article in the Chicago Tribune July 31 portraying workplace accommodations for “gender queer” and “nonbinary” employees as perfectly normal shouldn’t come as a surprise, even if it induces nausea.

It’s the kind of article that makes you despair not only about the collapse in traditional norms surrounding male and female, but also about the state of journalism. Written by a Tribune business reporter, the article is headlined “He, she or they: How companies are starting to address calls for a gender-neutral workplace.”

Devoid of critical thought, the article reads like a press release from an LGBTQ advocacy group. It’s fully sympathetic with those who “describe themselves as identifying as neither male nor female, identify as both, or reject gender labels entirely: gender fluid, gender neutral, gender queer or gender nonconforming.”

The reporter, Corilyn Shropshire, an experienced journalist with a master’s degree in social policy from the London School of Economics, apparently could think of no valid concerns about “nonbinary” employees causing tension and confusion in the workplace by insisting, among other things, that they be referred to individually with the pronoun “they,” normally used to refer to more than one person. The angle Shropshire took with her story was that all challenges posed by those who are “gender queer” should be met by catering to their whims. She wrote:

Redefining a workplace as some employees redefine themselves has meant challenges on both sides of the desk. For nonbinary workers, it’s explaining who you are to your bosses and colleagues and getting them to understand it, accept it and use the right pronoun. For employers, it’s making the office an environment that is accepting of nonbinary employees and in turn, changing workplace dress codes, the company directory, personnel manuals and longstanding forms that require employees to check off boxes identifying them as “male” or “female.”

What’s especially disconcerting is that at a paper the size of the Chicago Tribune, a story like this one goes through multiple layers of brainstorming and editing. No one thought this piece came across as lacking in how it presented a controversial issue? The story quotes not a single soul who finds pandering to “nonbinary” employees to be a troubling development.

The story quotes only proponents of “gender queer” accommodations, including an associate professor of history at Amherst College who complains that “human resources practices are usually very binary” and that for those who are “nonbinary,” “there’s not even a place for you to exist in the (HR) system.” But HR practices have historically been binary because until recently they tended to correspond with reality, that reality being that we are created male and female, and except in the cases of rare birth defects, the differences are obvious.

There also used to be an understanding that one’s personal proclivities and habits had to sometimes be put aside for the good of the organization, at least during work hours. Today the self reigns supreme, especially when it comes to sexuality, and all must bow down before it. The demands of “nonbinary” employees are so absurd that in a sane world such employees would be told to knock it off or encouraged to get help. That the business world and mainstream journalists now see such demands as legitimate is a disturbing sign that too many influential people in our culture are losing their minds. It’s not just those personally identifying as “gender queer” who are sick. It’s also their enablers.

The Tribune article relates the story of Avery Matthew, a young man who works at Brilliant Staffing in Chicago and pouts that “some colleagues still stumble over the appropriate pronoun to use” even though he’s been out as “nonbinary” for more than two years. “It becomes emotionally exhausting to have to correct people,” he says. But has Matthew tried thinking of his coworkers, who might be exhausted by having to remember during their busy day to use different pronouns with him or risk being labeled insensitive or worse? The reason it’s hard to remember is that it’s unnatural. The natural thing is to refer to people with words referring to their true essence as men and women. It wears on people to be forced into a lie and to be smooth in participating in the lie when there are many other stresses in the workday competing for their attention.

Matthew is also upset that there are no gender-neutral bathrooms at work. He uses both, but wants one he can “walk into without worrying about people’s reactions.” But of course there is one – the men’s restroom. Why can’t the male essence of his “gender fluidity” be content with that during work hours? What’s the big deal if he at least partly identifies as male? Unfortunately, the Tribune had no interest in digging deeper and pondering how immaturity and self-absorption might play in a role in the weird and nonsensical demands of the “gender queer.”

Dr. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, addressed gender confusion on his podcast The Briefing Aug. 9, calling on Christians to stand firm against calls to abandon reality. He said:

Christians have to speak sanity even if no one else does. It’s because our understanding of humanity and of identity begins with God, begins with a Creator who made us for his glory, who determined not only where and when we would be born, but that we would exist, putting us on this earth and giving us an identity as his gift. Of course, there is some extent to which every single individual develops a self and develops personality, but that is fundamentally different from understanding that we determine our own identity.

Too bad the Tribune didn’t see fit to give this perspective at least a passing mention. It’s one many Americans still hold, even if the Tribune treats them as if they don’t exist.

Written by L. Brent Bozell III

The “gender reveal” has become a growing phenomenon in the world of social media. When expectant parents discover the gender of their unborn baby, they make a big announcement revealing the baby’s sex, with cakes and balloons and even pyrotechnics.

It’s a celebration of life, a desire to share the joyous news of the little boy or girl. Ah, but there’s the rub. A boy or a girl. In today’s perverted culture, this is wrong — very wrong.

It’s not surprising that in today’s war on the “gender binary,” major newspaper columnists appointed to write on “gender issues” (can you believe it) have written jeremiads attacking the very idea. Enter Monica Hesse of The Washington Post, whose July 31 article was headlined “Let’s have a gender-reveal party that reveals gender is a construct.”

In other words, stop doing “gender reveals,” because gender isn’t “assigned at birth.” It’s something for the child to decide later.

Hesse began by telling the tale of a mother named Jenna Karvunidis, who first made this trend viral by having a gender-reveal party with a pink cake. Now she regrets the whole thing. Karvunidis recently composed a follow-up post about her daughter Bianca — now just “Bee” — whose female gender she’d celebrated. “PLOT TWIST,” she wrote on Facebook. “The world’s first gender-reveal party baby is a girl who wears suits!”

Karvunidis included a family photo of “Bee,” now wearing a white suit and an androgynous haircut. This regretful mother declared her fealty to the gender-crushing revolution: “Who cares what gender the baby is? I did at the time because we didn’t live in 2019 and didn’t know what we know now — that assigning focus on gender at birth leaves out so much of their potential and talents that have nothing to do with what’s between their legs.”

Hesse was delighted by this confession, since she “was already buried in gender-reveal footage, planning to write a column about the perverse pleasure of watching the ones that fail.”

She hates the gender-reveal people.

Hesse began the article by admitting she gleefully watched four times the video of a couple in Australia celebrating with blue exhaust fumes, but then the car burst into flames and was destroyed. She also enjoyed another video “in which a man attempts to hit a pink-powder-filled balloon off a golf tee, and instead thwacks his buddy in the groin. Or another, of a guy accidentally hitting a softball into his wife’s face.”

At The Washington Post, civility dies in schadenfreude.

Hesse hates how these parties are often “hypermasculine” events, with axes and chainsaws and footballs. Or there was the off-duty Border Patrol agent who caused a 47,000-acre forest fire after he “shot a blue-dust-filled target that exploded more thoroughly than planned.”

The Post columnist angrily claimed that “the entire event is based on remarkable hubris: Parents try to concoct a memorable moment out of exhaust pipes, only to have nature inform them that there are no carefully concocted moments when it comes to raising children.” Parents must learn today’s lesson on “the limits of binary color choices.” Your child may “choose” their gender as they grow, and parents must be expected to promote that choice, and whatever mind-numbing terminology follows.

The cultural deconstructionist left is always reminding us that yesterday’s religiously informed “patriarchy” isn’t the only orthodoxy that pushes a set of manners and expectations on the culture. They have toppled God, and put the solipsistic anarchy of gender politics in His place.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

You’ve probably heard homosexual activists and “trans”-cultists mock the idea that Christians in First World countries are or ever will be persecuted. Well, here’s a news item direct from the expanding “That is NOT persecution” file: Catholic clinical psychologist Dr. Joseph Nicolosi Sr.’s books on reparative therapy for those who experience unwanted same-sex attraction are now banned from Amazon.

Since deliberately deceitful homo-activists relentlessly conflate “aversion” therapies, which can include the administration of pain, and reparative therapies, it’s important to clarify that Nicolosi’s counseling practice and underlying theories never included “aversion” therapy treatments, nor were they coercive. His treatment protocol was “talk therapy” intended to help clients better understand the environmental factors that may have contributed to the development of same-sex attraction in the hope of reducing such feelings. Nicolosi, who died in 2017, promised no particular outcome, engaged in no “aversion” therapies, and counseled no one who opposed counseling.

Whether one accepts or rejects his theories about the possible effects of childhood trauma on the development of same-sex attraction is irrelevant to an assessment of the ethical implications of and danger posed by Amazon’s de facto censorship. Many would argue that “born gay” or “born-‘trans’” theories are both devoid of conclusive proof and are destructive, and yet Amazon doesn’t ban the sale of books that promulgate those doctrinaire theories.

This remarkable political feat of getting e-commerce colossus Amazon to ban the sale of a book was achieved by British homosexual Rojo Alan who doesn’t like Nicolosi’s theories and set out on a campaign to undermine liberty by making it far more difficult for people around the world to access ideas Alan doesn’t like. He joined a petition drive, contacted Amazon, and through Reddit and Twitter encouraged people who hadn’t read Nicolosi’s books to leave bad reviews.

Here’s an excerpt from Rojo Alan’s jubilant July 2 Facebook post:

Our hard work finally fucking paid off!! We got the homophobic books pulled from Amazon!!! Thank you all for the help!!!!

On the 31st of May, I made a post on Facebook, asking all of you to help me in getting a number of homophobic books pulled from Wordery and Amazon.

The main book in question was one called, ‘A parents guide to preventing homosexuality’ by Joseph Nicolosi.

I asked for people to go to each website and leave a bad review and also contact the providers if possible.

After I had messaged Wordery, they took down the said book from their website within 24 hours.

However, Amazon did not as they said these books didn’t go against their rules. I wasn’t willing to let this be. So since then, I had been working on getting these books pulled. I contacted Amazon regularly to speak to them about the books, about how unethical they are.

For the most part, it felt I wasn’t getting anywhere. They would say to me “we will pass it onto the relevant team to look into.” and that was it. I was constantly checking Amazon to see if the books were still there, and they were.

It was frustrating. So I make a plan of attack. I realised me saying to them “these books are bad” wasn’t getting anywhere. So I started by posting on other social media websites, like Reddit and twitter – to get people to leave negative reives [sic] on these books. Someone on Reddit also pointed me to a petition that was created to have these books removed.

It took a couple of weeks but the rating on Amazon dropped from a 4 star to a 2 star. I was finally getting somewhere.

I then started to look deeper into things. I looked into the “rules of publishing” on Amazon, to see what sort of things they allow and don’t allow. Once I wrapped my head around that I started to look into the laws of conversion therapy. The legal side of things.

Once I gathered everything I went back to Amazon and I threw all the information I had at them in several conversations….

My last conversation with Amazon was 6 days ago on the 26th June.

As of today ALL THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE BOOKS BY JOSEPH NICOLOSI, HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE UK AND US AMAZON STORE!!!

…

This is such a huge fucking step in the right direction. Getting such a huge retailer to remove something like this.

Note Rojo Alan’s use of the term “homophobic.” The term means irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals, but that’s not what homo-activists mean when they use it. Even those who were counseled by Nicolosi and reject his theories have not accused him of being hateful. What Alan means by “homophobic” is ideas that dissent from the dogmatic theories and moral assumptions of the homosexuality-affirming community.

Apparently, the politically biased Amazon owned by the bigoted Jeff Bezos was only too happy to comply with a book-banning request—a decision rationalized by an appeal to Amazon’s elastic principles.

Amazon does, indeed, prohibit materials that are

libelous, defamatory, harassing, threatening, or inflammatory. For example, don’t…express hatred or intolerance for people on the basis of… gender or gender identity, religion, [or] sexual orientation.

But moral and ontological assumptions with which homosexual activists disagree do not constitute either hatred of or intolerance for persons. If they did, however, then any book that espouses Leftist moral and ontological assumptions about homosexuality should be banned as well because they conflict with theologically orthodox religious beliefs and, therefore, violate Amazon’s prohibition of materials that “express hatred or intolerance for people on the basis of religion.”

Rod Dreher, senior editor of the American Conservative, writes that Amazon still carries Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler, Communism with the Mask Off and Bolshevism in Theory and Practice by Joseph Goebbels, multiple books by pro-Stalin apologist Grover Furr, and a “highly influential text by the Islamist radical Sayyid Qutb, Milestones, which calls on Muslims to wage relentless global jihad against non-Muslims and insufficiently radical Muslims, until the entire world is under radical Islamic rule.”

So many contradictions, so little time.

I guess Rojo Alan (and Amazon) missed these Amazon rules:

As a bookseller, we provide our customers with access to a variety of viewpoints, including books that some customers may find objectionable. 

and:

Don’t attempt to drown out other people’s opinions, including by posting from multiple accounts or coordinating with others.

By ignoring the drop from four stars to two stars in a two-week period of a book published years ago, Amazon also ignored its own product review guidelines that prohibit

[P]osting content… on behalf of anyone else.

How long will it be before Amazon bans the sale of other books that espouse ideas homo-activists and “trans”-cultists hate? And at what point will Leftists be forced to admit that Christians are, indeed, being persecuted?

• When a federal law is passed requiring all citizens to use incorrect pronouns when referring to men and women who masquerade as the opposite sex?

• When Christian colleges lose their accreditation for refusing to pretend that biological males are women?

• When all private spaces are sexually integrated, including all restrooms, locker rooms, dorm rooms, nursing home rooms, semi-private hospital rooms, jails and prisons, and women’s shelters?

• When all previously all-women activities are forced to include men?

• When parents who oppose the chemical sterilization and surgical mutilation of their children lose custody to Big Brother?

• When it becomes illegal for pastors and priests to preach the whole counsel of God, including those parts of Scripture that homo-activists and “trans”-cultists don’t like?

• When Amazon bans the Bible?

All of these actions will constitute persecution of Christians because all violate theologically orthodox Christian beliefs regarding sexuality and God’s created order.

The persecution of Christians is on our doorstep. Christians need to be prepared, and it’s incumbent upon church leaders to prepare them.

“Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,
while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.”
(1 Timothy 3:12-13)

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Bigot-Bezos-and-Amazon-Ban-Book.mp3

IFI Fall Banquet with Franklin Graham!
We are excited to announce that at this year’s IFI banquet, our keynote speaker will be none other than Rev. Franklin Graham, President & CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christian evangelist & missionary. This year’s event will be at the Tinley Park Convention Center on Nov. 1st.

Learn more HERE.

Everyone who’s conscious knows that Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are in the tank for “progressivism”—also known as “Cultural Regressivism that Undermines Decency” (CRUD). While the hive at Google manipulates its algorithms to hide information that regressives don’t like, Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook Overlords censor with the kind of tyrannical oppression that in the good old days liberals and radicals feared and loathed. Now that liberals and radicals control the levers of power, they have abandoned all previous philosophical commitments to freedom and liberty. A new explosive undercover video by Project Veritas exposes the extraordinary and deceitful machinations of Google to manipulate access to information in order that regressivism can gain and maintain yet more power. In other words, Google—like its fascistic government precursors—exploits its monopolistic power to propagandize, thereby securing its iron grip on power. Resistance is almost futile.

With his face and voice concealed, a Google insider warns about the implications of the confluence of Google’s power, reach, and bias:

What’s scary is that Google’s deciding what’s important and what’s not important. They are… effectively deleting conversations from the national narrative. It reminds me of… a book called 1984. That should have been a warning…. Google’s… deciding what gets read, what gets consumed, what people are able to click on, what appears. It reminds me a lot of fascism…. When videos get pulled off of a platform, that’s… a form of censorship…. People have no idea that it’s happening. They still think that Google’s an objective source of information and it’s not.

Secretly recorded conversations with Google executive Jen Gennai reinforces the claims of the Google insider, further revealing Google’s Leftist bias, arrogance, and determined efforts to use its power to influence the next presidential election:

The reason we launched our [Artificial Intelligence] principles is because people were not …. saying what is fair and what’s equitable, so we’re like, “Well, we are a big company. We’re going to say it.”… [M]y definition of fairness and bias specifically talks about historically marginalized communities, and that’s who I care about. Communities who are in power, and have traditionally been in power, are not who I’m solving fairness for. Our definition of fairness is one of those things that we thought would be like obvious, and everybody would agree to, and it wasn’t…. [T]he same people who voted for the current President did not agree with our definition of fairness.

Gennai’s/Google’s—let’s just say Gennoogle—Gennoogle’s definition of fairness differs not only from the definition held by the “people who voted for the current president” but also from the definition held by many others. Many people understand “fairness” to mean “impartial or just treatment without favoritism” or “the quality of treating people equally.”

“Historically marginalized communities” refers to identity-peddlers’ four favorite categories of humans:  blacks, women, homosexuals, and cross-sex “passers.” Leftists like Gennoogle have been forced to add “historically” to marginalized, since these groups have pushed from the margins to the center which will not hold.

Clearly Gennoogle has no interest in genuine fairness. “Fairness,” like hatred, inclusivity, safety, tolerance, and equality, means exactly what the googley Humpty Dumptys choose it to mean. Who cares if theologically orthodox Christians or political conservatives are treated unfairly. That’s their problem to solve, dagnabbit!

Gennai reveals the supreme arrogance of Google, which presumes to make “things more fair” by supplanting the will of the people as expressed through the duly elected executive and legislative branches of the government with Gennoogle’s reconceptualization of “fairness”:

The White House and Congress won’t play a role in making things more fair, so people are holding us accountable to fill the gap of what should be done.

Gennai makes clear the presumptive supremacy of the Google hive mind over the elected representatives of the people:

We got called in front of Congress multiple times, and we’ve not shown up because we’re like, we just know they’re going to just attack us. We’re not going to change our mind. There’s no point in just sitting there being attacked over something that we know we’re not going to change…. They can pressure us, but we’re not changing.

Gennai adds more flesh to the bones hinted at in her allusion to Trump, his supporters, and “fairness”:

Elizabeth Warren is saying that we should break up Google…. [S]he’s very misguided. That will not make it better, it will make it worse because now all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation…. a small company cannot do that.

We all got screwed over in 2016…. so now we’ve rapidly been like, “What happened there? How do we prevent it from happening again?”

Evidently in panic mode after the exposé was released, Gennai penned a futile effort to recast her damning words and malign Project Veritas:

[T]hese people lied about their true identities, filmed me without my consent, selectively edited and spliced the video to distort my words and the actions of my employer, and published it widely online.

While Google engages in unconscionable, secretive efforts to manipulate public opinion and to silence conservative employees through fear of loss of employment, she’s outraged about being secretly recorded?

Surely a smart human like Gennai knows that all documentaries and exposés “selectively” edit. The ethical issue is not whether an exposé is selectively edited. The ethical issue is whether it was edited in such a way as to distort someone’s words. Gennai tries to prove that Project Veritas distorted her words about the 2016 election, saying she never suggested Google objected to Trump’s election per se but rather to “foreign interference”:

In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016.

If Gennoogle’s concern were really with online foreign interference, what sense did her statement about being “screwed” mean, since Russian attempts at foreign interference didn’t affect the election outcome. Leftists like Gennoogle believe they were “screwed” by Trump’s winning. They were not “screwed” by Russian attempts to interfere. Does Gennai think all Americans just fell off the turnip truck?

Project Veritas asked the Google insider about the meaning of this statement from an internal Google document:

In some cases, it may be appropriate to take no action if the system accurately affects current reality. While in other cases, it may be desirable to consider how we might help society reach a more fair and equitable state via product intervention.”

The Google insider translated into plain English what “helping society” looks like in the Google hive:

What they want to do is they want to act as gatekeepers between the user and the content that they’re trying to access. They’re going to come in, they’re going to filter the content. They’re going to say, “Actually, we don’t want to give the user access to that information because it’s going to create an outcome that’s undesirable to us.”

This exposé will come as no surprise to former Google employee Mike Wacker, recently fired for publicly criticizing Google’s “outrage mobs and witch hunts.” Wacker shared that the Google outrage mobs (OMs) demanded Google have nothing to do with the conservative Heritage Foundation, calling its president Kay Cole James the Grand Wizard of the KKK. For those who don’t know, Kay Cole James is black and endured egregious racist attacks when growing up.

You may wonder exactly how the OMs could justify calling a black woman the Grand Wizard of the KKK. Well, this particular OM has concluded, apparently with no scientific proof, that masquerading as the opposite sex is analogous to race, and, therefore, opposing things like co-ed restrooms and locker rooms—which the Heritage Foundation does—is analogous to racism.

Wacker revealed that one Google employee was reported to Human Resources (HR) for sharing a National Review article, and another was reported for appearing “to be promoting and defending Jordan Peterson’s comments about transgender pronouns,” which allegedly made some Google employee “feel unsafe at work.” #eyeroll

What other subjective, often-changeable feelings will Google OMs conclude are analogous to race? Will those employees who disagree with the hive’s assumptions about those other feelings be safe in that “nonpartisan,” inclusive space to express their views? And what if the OMs are wrong? What if cross-sex identification, cross-sex hormone-doping, surgical mutilation, and co-ed private spaces are, in reality, neither good nor right?

While Wacker lost his job, Blake Lemoine retains his job as senior software engineer at Google. The name Blake Lemoine may sound familiar. He made the news in 2018 for calling Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn a terrorist for writing an op-ed critical of the obvious bias against conservatives and Republicans within tech companies like Google and Facebook.

Wacker reports that in internal Google employee forums, Lemoine also said this:

If you think that trans women aren’t women then you can either keep it to yourself or GTFO [Get the f**k out]. Google’s corporate policies are crystal clear on that.

While Google employees are free to say that “transwomen”—who are objectively, immutably, scientifically verifiably men—are women, others are not permitted to say “transwomen” are men. Deviate from the deviant narrative and off with your head!

Trouble seems to follow Lemoine—who identifies variously as a pagan priest and Gnostic Christian—wherever he goes. The “bisexual” Lemoine who is in a “non-monogamous” relationship with his wife enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2003 and then in 2004 “realized he did not like working with U.S. Army troops.” When the Army refused to allow him “to quit the Army,” he went on a work strike and then a hunger strike. He was court-martialed and discharged for bad conduct.

Before whistle-blower Mike Wacker, there was former Google engineer James Damore who was fired in 2017 after he wrote and distributed a measured internal memo replete with evidence in which he criticized Google for, among other things, being “an ideological echo chamber.” Can’t have any Google employee pointing out that the emperor brooks no dissent. Off with his head!

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Dark-Underbelly-of-Google.mp3

IFI Fall Banquet with Franklin Graham!
We are excited to announce that at this year’s IFI banquet, our keynote speaker will be none other than Rev. Franklin Graham, President & CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christian evangelist & missionary. This year’s event will be at the Tinley Park Convention Center on Nov. 1st.

Learn more HERE.

We all know about the leftist leanings of the so-called masters of the universe, the internet giants. We all know about the discriminatory treatment that many of us on the right are experiencing. The question is: How do we respond? Do we pick up our marbles and leave? Do we build our own platforms? Do we stand up and fight? Or perhaps it’s a combination of all of the above?

Recently, Lawrence Jones, editor-in-chief for Campus Reform, opined that conservatives are being lazy here. In his words, “Go create your own platforms.”

Jones, who is a libertarian, believes that the social media giants are free to run their companies however they want to, and if we don’t like it, we should go elsewhere.

In the end, we may have no choice but to do that very thing, and at this moment, millions of dollars are being invested in the development of new platforms.

As for Campus Reform, it is one of the most important voices today when it comes to exposing the radical leftist agenda on our college and university campuses.

That being said, I take issue with Jones’ assessment for a few reasons.

First, we helped build these very platforms. Conservatives like you and me helped build YouTube and Facebook and Twitter and Google.

Some of us have spent thousands of hours developing videos or posting blogs or making comments, getting our message out with regularity and interacting with millions of others in the process.

Why should we simply walk away without pushing back? Why should we concede defeat when we have hardly begun to stand?

Second, when we came on board, no one told us that these platforms would be biased against us.

Had we known this up front, many of us would not have gotten involved in the first place.

Instead, what we understood was that these were neutral platforms. These were networks where we could connect with our friends. These were accessible places where we could share our videos. These were settings where we could intersect with people from all backgrounds.

It would be akin to a new bank opening in our city, offering the most attractive interest rates and the best customer options. So, we gladly switch our accounts to that bank.

It is only then, once the bank has our money, that we find out they are using the profits to fund radical, anti-Christian causes. And to add insult to injury, in the fine print, there’s a severe penalty for early withdrawal.

Obviously, the analogy is not meant to be exact. (So, please back off, dear critics.) But it is meant to convey a point: Had we known the facts at the outset, we would not have put our money in that bank.

At this point, having made substantial investments of time and energy, building our audiences and our platforms, we’re not ready to simply walk away.

Third, for some of us, the whole goal is reach and impact. In my case, AskDrBrown is a non-profit ministry, so we live and breathe to reach others with our message. We’re here to make the maximum impact on the maximum number of people, and that means not just preaching to the choir.

So, as long as YouTube allows us to post our videos, we will continue to use that platform, since we reach millions of people who otherwise would not know about us.

Day and night, we receive hateful, ugly comments from critics and bashers. Day and night, quite literally 24/7, we receive comments from dissenters and from seekers.

So, since it is one of our goals to shine God’s light in dark places, we’re not prepared to walk away just because we are being unfairly treated.

I’m sure many other conservatives, be it for moral or spiritual or ideological reasons, feel the same way.

Fourth, there is something that everyone can do, and it’s quite simple.

Focusing on YouTube in particular, if you like the content you’re watching and the channel has been demonetized, then support that channel directly.

At present, the moment one of our videos goes live, it gets flagged by YouTube as not suitable for all advertisers, forcing us to request a manual review. In some cases, the videos are approved; in other cases, not. (So, to be clear, the videos are not being blocked or removed. They’re being demonetized.)

As much as possible, we are challenging YouTube to be fair and consistent. That’s all we’re asking for.

Again, the day might come when these doors will close to us entirely. Or new and better platforms might be developed. Or the whole face of the internet might take a dramatic new turn.

But for now, let’s stand up and speak out and push back. The door is not yet slammed in our face.

This article was initially published on AskDrBrown.org

On Thursday Heidi Stevens, the Chicago Tribune’s foolish lifestyle writer, wrote in glowing terms about a noxious new Gillette razor ad that features “trans” -activist “Samson” Bonkabantu Brown, a young woman who pretends to be a young man, getting a face-shaving tutorial from her father. Stevens views the science-denying ad that implicitly affirms the chemical sterilization and surgical mutilation of children as evolutionary, helpful, and powerful. And here I thought we were supposed to love our bodies just as they are.

On the very same day, arts and entertainment writer (the Trib uses the words “arts” and “entertainment” very loosely) Steve Johnson did his level best to intellectualize, sanitize, and elevate a perverse new art exhibit titled “About Face: Stonewall, Revolt and new Queer Art,” describing it as an “ambitious…. Sweeping survey of queer art curated with an eye toward the transgendered, the intersectional, the ways in which sexuality is being more widely recognized as fluid and complex rather than binary and rigid.” Maybe if he had tried just a wee bit harder, he could have packed in a tad more “progressive” jargon.

It’s a bit unclear what Johnson means when he refers to sexuality. If he’s referring to hardwired biological sex, then it remains stubbornly “binary and rigid” no matter what “trans”-alchemists are widely pretending, er I mean, “recognizing.”

If, however, he’s referring to “sexual orientation” or sexual appetites, he’s right. They’re fluid and complex—not binary or rigid. Due to the fall of man, the sexual appetites of men and women are diverse, fluid, complex, malformed, misshapen, misdirected, misoriented, and disordered by all sorts of environmental and biological factors. It’s been dogmatic homosexuals who have tried to convince the world that “sexual orientation” is (relatively) binary (i.e., heterosexual or homosexual) and rigid. Scripture has long informed those with eyes to see and ears to hear that sexual appetites are fluid. Remember reading about incest, homosexuality, cross-dressing, and bestiality? Remember reading that there’s nothing new under the sun? Remember reading that “such were some of you”?

The exhibit’s curator, Jonathan David Katz, has had a remarkable career proselytizing for sodomy. According to Wikipedia, Katz is the former executive coordinator of the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies at Yale University, former chair of the Department of Lesbian and Gay studies at the City College of San Francisco, first tenured faculty in gay and lesbian studies in the United States, founder of the Harvey Milk Institute (the largest queer studies institute in the world named in honor of the despicable ephebophile Harvey Milk), co-founder of Queer Nation in San Francisco, and first artistic director of the National Queer Arts Festival in San Francisco.

To quote Howlin’ Wolf, Great Googly Moogly!

Our culture has become debauched enough that Katz is bold enough to admit that “for a lot of queer people, the goal was never to create a separate and polar gay community… that stood in opposition to straightness. Rather, the goal was to get rid of sexuality as a defining term of human difference.” Word to queer people, if by “sexuality” you mean, biological sex, your goal is quixotic and futile. Biological sex is the most fixed defining term of difference within the sexually dimorphic humans species. If by “sexuality,” you mean homoeroticism, your goal is equally quixotic and futile. Though you may be able to fool some people–perhaps even many people–into believing homoerotic acts are moral, you will never be able to fool all of them because truths about sexual morality are written on men’s and women’s hearts.

Here are some details Johnson offers about the exhibit:

“Chicago imagist icon Roger Brown is represented here, including transgressive paintings depicting ‘the relationship between a youth and an adult man, in which the younger partner is hardly a victim.’” (This is likely the painting, which you can zoom in on to read the captions.)

“Colombian artist Carlos Motta shows himself naked in a video* [warning: full frontal nudity], dangling in an upside-down crucifix position, moaning in seeming pain, or is it pleasure?”

“In one, walk-in work called ‘Self Service,’ you’ll find a wooden sex toy mounted on a bathroom wall between metal grab bars…. If a visitor was not previously familiar with the range of male genitalia, this show will fix that.”

“Joan E. Biren’s photographs on display depict an early lesbian collective at work; there’s a… 1977 image of a topless woman sawing wood.”

“A highlight of the show is the top-floor suite of Jerome Caja works, paintings mostly in nail polish on, seemingly, whatever material was on hand for the late San Francisco artist…. The miniature works…. confront Catholic…  iconography and drag queen tropes.” [If you’re curious about Caja, here’s his website, and here’s just one of his miniature works (obscenity warning): “Bozo Picks a Boyfriend”]

*Carlos Motta says this about Requiem: Mondo Invertito: “REQUIEM is based on a queer interpretation of the stories of the death and resurrection of Christ in an attempt to question their effect on the sustained exclusion of queer bodies and lives…. featuring bondage artists Stafano Laforgia and Andrea Ropes and Carlos Motta.”

Remember when kids would read newspapers for “current events” school assignments? Ah, those were the good old days. Now our newspapers should be wrapped in brown paper and sold in creepy stores in creepy urban neighborhoods frequented by creepy men in stained trench coats.

Steve Johnson and the Chicago Tribune should be ashamed, but shame is so yesterday.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Tribune-Promotes-Destructive-Deviance.mp3

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

As expected, pundits on the left are in an uproar at the president’s claims that a doctor conspires with parents as to whether to execute their newborn baby. In Trump’s words (spoken at a recent rally in Green Bay), “The baby is born, the mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully. Then the doctor and mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”

In response, Rolling Stone senior writer Jamil Smith tweeted, “President Trump keeps telling the same lie about abortion doctors murdering healthy fetuses after delivery. This doesn’t happen. Yet he said it again last night. This is precisely the kind of hysteria that inspires people who murder doctors and patients.”

Julia Pulver, a former neonatal nurse, said this: “When a baby dies in the hospital, it is a very sad thing but it is not something that is ever chosen. It is a horrible situation thrust upon parents who want their baby, who have prepared for the baby, who have framed sonograms sitting on their desks.”

According to Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, “What Trump asserted, for the second time, is false, illegal, and simply not happening — nor would it happen.” She claimed that, “The president “not only straight-up lied but also vilified women, families, and doctors facing situations every single one of us prays we never encounter.”

And Huffington Post adds this: “The recent focus on the alleged horrors of late-term abortions is especially fact-free. Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks, and experts say these involve pregnancies that endanger the mother (and by extension the baby) or severe fetal anomalies that are incompatible with life.”

Let’s address these claims one at a time.

First, President Trump said nothing about the baby being healthy (contra the tweet of Smith). Instead, he spoke about the very real situation in which a baby survives an abortion (or, presumably, is born with a life-threatening defect) and is allowed to die. That’s why Congress keeps trying to pass the Born Alive Protection Act.

In its current form, the bill reads, “To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.”

This is a real bill designed to address real, life and death situations.

Not only so, but it was Virginia governor Ralph Northam who provided Trump with his main talking points about infanticide.

As Northam infamously said during a radio interview, “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion.”

Yet the left rails on Trump for calling this out rather than on Northam for saying it.

To repeat: These things are really happening.

An official government document dated September 23, 2016, notes that, “In 2002, Congress responded by passing the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was signed by President George W. Bush and is current federal law. This law recognized a child who is born alive after a failed abortion attempt, as a legal person under the laws of the United States. The legal definition of live birth includes any sign of life, such as breath, heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.

“Unfortunately, incidents involving born alive children being killed after an attempted abortion have continued after this law was passed. Infanticide is unacceptable in a civilized society, regardless of what one may think about abortion itself. It should be uncontroversial for the federal government to supplement current law with enforcement protections for born-alive children after attempted abortions. That is why Congress must pass the proposed legislation known as the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 3504/S. 2066).”

Trump is not lying. These things are happening. They may happen just as he described (with the baby being wrapped in a blanket) or they may not (perhaps the baby is left naked and crying on a table). But they are happening, nonetheless.

Yet, to repeat, there’s no outcry from the left about these horrors. The outcry is about the president drawing attention to the horrors.

As noted by Tony Perkins, “Liberals certainly thought infanticide was real enough in 2002, when protecting infants was so uncontroversial that it passed without a single Democratic opponent. Since then, the CDC’s data only confirms these atrocities — as do mountains of eyewitness testimony, grand jury reports, survivors’ own stories, and admissions by doctors like Northam himself!”

Second, what point is made by saying, “Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks”? What if the sentence read, “Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place after birth”? Would that lessen the severity of the crime? We only kill a tiny percentage of babies once they’re born!

Let’s also put this in real-life numbers.

According to a just-released CDC report, in New York City in 2015, “the number of abortions at or after 21 weeks was 1,485 while the number of homicide victims was 352.”

Shall we celebrate the fact that this (allegedly) represents “only” 1.3 percent of abortions?

These, in short, are the facts: States like New York have passed laws allowing for abortions right up to the time of delivery. Infanticide is taking place. And in countries like the Netherlands, “650 babies a year [are] euthanized so that their parents don’t have to witness them struggle with disability or disease.”

In light of all this, I’m glad that President Trump continues to speak up. He is addressing something terribly evil, and it behooves every person of conscience to stand with him in standing for the rights of “the least of these.”

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

In 2019 America the culture war rages on. At the heart of the culture war, life and death clash daily. And at the heart of the life and death battle stands one egregious business — Planned Parenthood.

As I wrote in, “Planned Parenthood, An Unnecessary Evil“:

The original intent of Planned Parenthood has been veiled with a facade of honorable work, but the truth is despicable to the core.

Planned Parenthood’s predecessor, The American Birth Control League, was founded by Nazi-inspiration Margaret Sanger, the godmother of modern eugenics, in 1921.

…

The real Margaret Sanger espoused sinister motives for advancing birth control and abortion: she fully endorsed eugenics for the betterment of race and society.

Sanger was a Darwinist who embraced a utilitarian view of human life, and proposed to rid our nation of the criminal element and “inferior races” through abortion and breeding programs.

Too many in our society entertain misconceptions about Planned Parenthood, owing to the biased coverage of Mainstream Media and the relentless marketing of the taxpayer-dollars-rich organization.

Planned Parenthood masquerades as a benevolent women’s health company, with clinics purposefully erected in poor and ethnic neighborhoods, preying on desperate women, killing defenseless babies.

And yes…those babies can and do feel pain.

That pain plays a part in an upcoming movie, Unplanned, the true story of former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson.

Abby swallowed the “we help women” Planned Parenthood ruse, and in spite of her Christian upbringing, justified her involvement in abortion. She was removed from the gore of the actual abortions until she wasn’t…and everything changed.

Abby’s bio on her site details:

During her eight years with Planned Parenthood, Abby quickly rose through the organization’s ranks and became a clinic director.

…Abby loved the women that entered her clinic and her co-workers. Despite a growing unrest within her, she stayed on and strove to serve women in crisis.

All of that changed on September 26, 2009 when Abby was asked to assist with an ultrasound-guided abortion. She watched in horror as a 13 week baby fought for, and ultimately lost, its life at the hand of the abortionist.

Johnson’s testimony is powerful: when confronted with the absolute horror of abortion, she wept, heartbroken at her complicity in the brutal killing of thousands of tiny babies.

Unplanned tells the heart-rending story of Abby’s involvement in Planned Parenthood, her visceral realization of the truth about abortion, and her repentance leading to a calling to save babies’ lives and help post-abortive mothers find peace and healing.

Watch the trailer below:

After that providential September 2009 day, as written at Abby’s site, AbbyJohnson.org:

At that moment, she fully realized what abortion actually was and what she had dedicated her life to. As it washed over Abby, a dramatic transformation had occurred. Desperate and confused, Abby sought help from a local pro-life group. She swore that she would begin to advocate for life in the womb and expose abortion for what it truly is.

Today, Abby travels across the globe sharing her story, educating the public on pro-life issues, advocating for the unborn, and reaching out to abortion clinic staff who still work in the industry. She is the founder of And Then There Were None, a ministry designed to assist abortion clinic workers in transitioning out of the industry. To date, this ministry has helped over 430 workers leave the abortion industry. Abby lives in Texas with her husband and seven precious children.

And now pro-life Americans everywhere have the opportunity to jump in the fray, to fight for life in this escalating battle of death versus life. We know God is NOT silent on the subject:

This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live [Deuteronomy 30:19]

Unplanned tells the redemptive and powerful story of Abby Johnson and her transformation from a Planned Parenthood clinic director, unwittingly advancing a culture of death, to a champion of women and babies and LIFE!

The movie site, UnplannedFilm.com, gives the synopsis:

Unplanned is the inspiring true story of one woman’s journey of transformation.

All Abby Johnson ever wanted to do was help women. As one of the youngest Planned Parenthood clinic directors in the nation, she was involved in upwards of 22,000 abortions and counseled countless women about their reproductive choices. Her passion surrounding a woman’s right to choose even led her to become a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood, fighting to enact legislation for the cause she so deeply believed in.

Until the day she saw something that changed everything, leading Abby Johnson to join her former enemies at 40 Days For Life, and become one of the most ardent pro-life speakers in America.

There is power in lives transformed by God’s grace, and Unplanned uses the big screen to display that power magnificently.

Unplanned opens in theaters March 29, and the website has a sign-up page to be alerted when tickets are available HERE.

I saw Abby in person last year, and with a church full of pro-lifers, tears streaming down our faces, was utterly amazed at the depth of the abortion industry’s depravity but the height of God’s mercy and grace.

I would implore — in the Apostle Paul’s language — I would beseech each and every one of you to share this article, to share the Unplanned information! Perhaps you can even help plan a private showing or buy out a showing at a local theater.

Information HERE.

This movie could strike a death knell on Planned Parenthood in the wake of President Trump announcing “a final ruling last Friday to ban Title X grants from going to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.”

This could very well be the beginning of the end of an evil organization which has snuffed out the life of over 13 million babies for profit since Roe was wrongly decided in 1973.

Again, from the Unplanned site:

Unplanned is the most important movie you’ll ever see on the most controversial issue of our time. No matter which side of the fence you’re on, no one will leave this film unmoved by Abby’s journey.

Unplanned might just open millions of eyes to the truth about Planned Parenthood and begin to thwart Margaret Sanger’s despicable scheme.

And perhaps we can all have a part in the victory of life over death.

Save the Date!

On Saturday, March 16, 2019, the Illinois Family Institute will be hosting our annual Worldview Conference. This coming year, we will focus on the “transgender” revolution. We already have commitments from Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians; Walt Heyer, former “transgender” and contributor to Public Discourse; Denise Schick, Founder and Director of Help 4 Families, and daughter of a man who “identified” as a woman; and Doug Wilson, who is a Senior Fellow of Theology at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, and pastor at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho .

The Transgender Ideology:
What Is It? Where Will It Lead? What is the Church’s Role?
Click here for more information.

Like so many other institutions birthed out of noble intentions, America’s public libraries were founded as a Christian endeavor. In fact, the earliest libraries were part of the United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel — a mission-minded Church of England entity.

A missionary priest, the Reverend John Sharpe, noted while visiting New York City in 1713:

Another thing which is very much wanted here is a public Library, which would very much advance both learning and piety. Such there are at Charles Town in Carolina, Annapolis in Mary Land, at Philadelphia and Boston. Some books have been formerly sent to New York but as parochial they remain in the hands of the Incumbent.

Like universities and hospitals, faith was an integral part of public libraries in our nation’s past. The intent being the advancement of literacy which might help spread the Gospel.

Now, a mere three centuries later, what began as a good work is being turned on its head and every parent and grandparent must be made aware and vigilant!

Not that many years ago libraries in America were a safe place for children to check out Make Way for Ducklings, Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel, The Boxcar Children and Little Women. Parents smiled at the mere thought of their kids whiling away hours at the local library.

But no more.

America’s libraries have become one more progressive tool to dismantle Judeo-Christian values, and every responsible mother and father, grandparent or guardian must understand how perverts use the library’s policy of unfiltered Internet to access obscene and illegal content.

This is nothing new. For more than 15 years now we have been sounding the alarm about the dangers of pornography and sex crimes in our libraries. It isn’t hyperbole to say that library officials, by refusing to use filtering technology to block graphic obscene websites, are fostering a clear and present danger in our neighborhoods and for our children. We have numerous examples on our YouTube page.

Recently, WGN Channel 9 News revisited this issue, and what they found on the third floor of Chicago’s Harold Washington Library is stunning. Their initial undercover report aired 10 years ago and was alarming.

Watch their most recent report:

The surrounding article is highly disturbing with excerpts such as this:

In 2019, if someone has a problem with another user’s obscene screen images, that person can move or ask a staffer or security to move the user viewing indecent images. Guards are stationed in the room, but they do not watch what viewers are calling up on their screens. They are instructed to only act when there’s a disturbance.

First of all, what kind of disturbance are they referring to? Well, not to shock you, but it is often men fondling themselves as they watch pornography. Why is the onus on the innocent to either move or ask a library staff person to ask someone viewing obscene images to move?

Moreover, the WGN report doesn’t challenge the notion that a library patron has some new First Amendment “right” to view illegal pornography in tax-funded public library. This is utterly false. First of all, taxpayers do not have an obligation to provide free smut to perverts in our neighborhood libraries. Secondly, much (if not most) of the pornography being viewed on the taxpayer dime would be found illegal if the U.S. Supreme Court test for obscenity were applied.

This is a public library, not an adult XXX bookstore! Shouldn’t one have an assumption of safety from obscenity and perversion at a library?

Psalm 101:3 instructs us:

I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.

The New Living Translation makes it even more clear:

I will refuse to look at
anything vile and vulgar.
I hate all who deal crookedly;
I will have nothing to do with them.

God knows mankind and our hearts. He made us and our minds with a marvelous connection between our creative imaginations and our behaviors. But with the fall came the propensity to, in our regenerate state, hunger after harmful things. Things which destroy.

Pornography is one such destructive thing.

Proverbs 6:27-33 warns of the end result of chasing wicked and vile things:

Can a man scoop fire into his lap
without his clothes being burned?

Can a man walk on hot coals
without his feet being scorched?

So is he who sleeps with another man’s wife;
no one who touches her will go unpunished.

People do not despise a thief if he steals
to satisfy his hunger when he is starving.

Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold,
though it costs him all the wealth of his house.

But a man who commits adultery has no sense;
whoever does so destroys himself.

Blows and disgrace are his lot,
and his shame will never be wiped away.

God’s Word is so clear about “seeing” vile things. The New Testament uses the word “fornication” from the Greek word “πορνεια” οr transliterated, “porneia,” from which we get the word pornography.

And what exactly does the Bible say about such behavior?

The apostle Paul tells us in his letter to the church at Corinth:

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18

Earlier in chapter 6 Paul admonishes:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Clearly, both the Old and New Testament decry the dangers of sexual sins, which begin with setting that “vile” thing before your eyes.

How should believers deal with such activity at their local library? Should we speak up? Should we boycott?

No matter our course of action, the first matter of importance is to safeguard our children! Protect them from the images AND those viewing these images. As harsh as it may sound, do NOT allow your children free access in the library.

Once upon a time parents could leave their kids unattended to study and read at the local library.

But this is not that time. Romans 1 has come to fruition and, though they claim not to “approve” of the pornography being viewed on public library computers, the librarians and American Library Association (ALA), appear to do nothing to stop this scourge.

The ALA mission being:

To provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all.

It would seem “access to information” is sacrosanct, RATHER than the protection of children and others!

That free access of ALL information sounds vaguely like another argument once made in a garden:

Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Let us choose that better thing, and to remember that, “children are an heritage of the Lord.”

We must actively protect our children first, then make our voices heard! After all, our tax dollars pay for those libraries!

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click here to enroll right away.

I hope, kind readers, that you will read this true tale of the Facebook (FB) Overlords to its troubling end.

Caution: This article contains obscene language (not mine)

Part I of A True Tale of the Facebook Overlords

In a pre-dawn raid on January 27, with virtual guns a’blazing, countless faceless Facebook Overlords scooped me up and threw me in the slammer. The indictment charged me with “violation of community standards”—very peculiar standards, as I came to learn. More on that later. The Overlords’ sentence: 3 days in the hole and the threat of exile to a secret penal colony in Australia.

Below are my three Facebook posts, posted between Dec. 5 and Jan. 27, that I was told “violate community standards.” I was also told that Facebook has “Community Standards to encourage people to express themselves and connect with each other in a way that’s respectful to everyone” (asterisks added to avoid FB jail):

1.) Tr*nnies and their ideological allies relentlessly bring up intersex disorders in an attempt to refute the claim that the human species is sexually binary. Intersex disorders of sexual development are irrelevant to discussions of people who have no intersex disorders. Saying the human species is sexually binary even though there exist disorders of sexual development is no more incorrect than saying the human species is bipedal even though there are humans born with only one or no legs, or saying humans have brains and skulls even though some are born with anencephaly. Disorders are disorders—not evidence of a new type of human. In fact, disorders illuminate and point to the original design for the human body. For example, sterility accompanies many intersex disorders, thus highlighting the disordered-ness of intersex disorders.”

2.) My thoughts on yet another tr*nny-penned New York Times commentary, this time about Twitter and “misgendering.” 🙄

3.) This is just a test post, folks: TR*NNY

I was banned for no reason other than my use of the word “tr*nny.” Don’t believe me? Try posting “tr*nny” on your FB page and make it public.

There is nothing threatening or bullying about my comments. Nor was I—to use the Overlords’ language—“purposefully” targeting “a person with the intention of degrading” him. I don’t know how the Overlords can discern someone’s intentions. Maybe FB Overlords possess Jedi force-sense.

Part II of A True Tale of the Facebook Overlords

This is where the tale gets more disturbing.

On Jan. 4 at 11:23 a.m., someone identified as Chicago DJ “Mike Lowe” publicly posted the following in the comments section under an Illinois Family Institute Facebook post on the legalization of marijuana:

Laurie Higgins, what the f*** is your problem?… Dumb f***ing b****…. Go f*** off and tell your pharmaceutical backers they are going to lose. They ARE LOSING, f***ing c*** 🖕 (asterisks added)

I banned him from IFI’s FB page and copied his comments onto my personal FB page, so people could see the tolerance of a Leftist. Then at 4:19 p.m. that same day under a fake Facebook account with the name “Mitch McDougalsworth,” Lowe sent this FB message to me:

So, you block me, then copy my Statement on your page for your loser friends? You’re f*cked btw. Should’ve thought before acting. See you soon!

DJ Mike Lowe/Mitch McDougalsworth wasn’t done with me. He sent another message under a new FB account with the fake name “Clarissa Pollack“:

That’s a good girl. Using your head for once I see? You get a cookie AND a special gold star treat for being a smart, good girl next time I get a chance to see you!! 🙂 Use YOUR F***ING HEAD. “YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHO IS WHO, WHAT IS WHAT, OR WHAT LIES IN THE WORLD BEYOND YOUR LITTLE RELIGIOUS, BRAINWASHED FANTASY. Have a blessed day! Watch it now! 😉 Ya hear?

After receiving the first two messages, I reported him to Facebook, and here’s where our story gets yet more disturbing. Facebook responded with this:

Hi Laurie,

Thanks for letting us know about this.

We reviewed the content you reported and found that it doesn’t go against our Community Standards. Community standards violations for messages include:

-Direct threats: serious threats of harm to public and personal safety, credible threats of physical harm, specific threats of theft, vandalism, or other financial harm.

-Sexual violence and exploitation: content that threatens or promotes sexual violence or exploitation, including solicitation of sexual material, any sexual content involving minors, threats to share intimate images, and offers of sexual services.

-Bullying or harassment: content that appears to purposefully target a person with the intention of degrading or shaming them, or repeatedly contacting a person despite that person’s clear desire and action to prevent contact.

Facebook Overlords have deemed the use of “tr*nny” a violation of community standards, but calling a woman an f***ing c*** and implying a threat does not. Got it.

I wonder, could ideological bias be involved in the Overlords’ peculiar community standards? hmmm…

For the uninitiated, “tr*nny” is not universally viewed as an epithet by members of the “trans” cult. Four years ago, some in the “trans” cult took the infamous cross-dresser Ru Paul to task for using the word “tr*nny” on his loathsome “reality” television show Ru Paul’s Drag Race to which he responded,

I love the word “tranny.” It is not the transsexual community [who objects]. These are fringe people who are looking for story lines to strengthen their identity as victims…. They’ve used their victim-hood [to say] “I want you to see me the way you’re supposed to see me”.…  [D]on’t you dare tell me what I can do or say. It’s just words. Yeah, words do hurt… You know what? … You need to get stronger…. because…  if you’re upset by something I said, you have bigger problems than you think.

While Ru Paul’s view may be illuminating, it has no bearing on my choice to occasionally use “tr*nny” on my personal FB page.

Some may wonder why I ever use the verboten “t” word. There are two reasons: First, it’s shorter and less cumbersome than “transgender.”

Second, and more important, capitulating to yet another rhetorical demand by the “LGBTQQAP” community, aided and abetted by other tyrannical Leftists, is dangerous. George Orwell warned us what this kind of language control is intended to do in his description of Newspeak “the official language of Oceania” which “had been devised to meet the ideological needs of IngSoc, or English Socialism”:

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

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

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

How long before “trans”-cultists decide that “transwoman” is an epithet and must be banned? After all, they have proclaimed that men who masquerade as women are women. What if they decide that “transwoman”—which implies a distinction between fake-women and real women—is offensive and must be banned? Will we acquiesce again out of fear or in the service of some sickeningly sweet, insalubrious imitation of real love?

If one group gets to decide what language others may, may not, or must use (e.g., goofy or grammatically incorrect pronouns), why aren’t the desires of conservatives similarly respected? Conservatives don’t like “transphobe” or “homophobe,” both of which imply irrational fear and hatred of persons. While I hate the ontological and moral beliefs of the homosexual and “trans” ideology, I don’t hate persons, so those terms are offensive, false, and potentially dangerous. Do the FB Overlords throw users of those terms in FB prison?

We owe no ignorant and destructive ideology respect. What we owe people is biblical love, which is inextricably linked to truth. Biblical love does not entail refraining from criticizing immoral, body- and soul-destroying behavior. And it does not require us to speak the truth using only language that affirmers of egregiously offensive behavior deem inoffensive. #CivilDisobedience

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/New-Recording-3.mp3

Christian Life in Exile
On February 22^nd, IFI is hosting a special forum with Dr. Erwin Lutzer as he teaches from his latest book, “The Church in Babylon,” answering the question, “How do we live faithfully in a culture that perceives our light as darkness?” This event is free and open to the public, and will be held at Jubilee Church in Medinah, Illinois.

Click HERE for more info…

Written by James Taylor

Global warming alarmists and their media allies launched a new scare last week, claiming that global warming is causing crop failures and food shortages around the globe.  In one of their biggest whoppers ever, the media are claiming that global warming has displaced “millions” of farmers in India and is causing – or will soon cause – similar devastation to farmers and crops in Bangladesh, Syria, and Honduras.  Objective evidence, however, decimates the assertion and shows that crop yields continue to set annual records as growing seasons lengthen, frost events become less frequent, soil moisture improves, and more atmospheric carbon dioxide fertilizes crops and plant life.

A January 10 Google News search for “global warming” listed near the top of its search results an article titled “How soon will climate change force you to move?” by an outlet called Fast Company.  Among other sensationalist climate claims, the article makes the claims listed above about global warming, crop failures, and resulting forced migration.  Fast Company, as it turns out, is trying to pull a fast one on you.

It is true that waxing and waning food production has been one of the most powerful components in the rise and fall of civilizations.  At Katowice, Poland, during the United Nations COP24 climate meetings in November 2018, Heartland Institute senior fellow Dennis Avery powerfully showed that throughout history, periods of increased crop yields have led to rising civilizations and expanding human populations.  Conversely, periods of declining crop yields triggered the fall of civilizations and led to famine, death, and contracting human populations.

Importantly, Avery showed that periods of global warmth stimulated the increased crop yields that led to expanding human populations.  Periods of global cooling repressed crop yields and led to misery, death, and contracting human populations.  The question is, has anything changed such that our modest present warming is causing declining crop production and resulting catastrophes?

Let’s first examine the claims regarding India.  Fast Company claims that “drought in some areas has forced millions of farmers to move.” For support, the article cites a Reuters article from July 2018 that interviews a failed farmer from India’s Madhya Pradesh state claiming that global warming and poor rainfall caused his failure as a farmer and his relocation to metropolitan New Delhi.  Poor rainfall “has caused repeated and widespread crop failures,” Reuters claims.  In summary, Fast Company cites another news organization’s profile of a failed farmer to support its alarmist climate assertions.

However, crop data from India eviscerate the claim that global warming, through drought or any other mechanism, is causing rampant crop failure in India.  The Indian government reports that Indian farmers produced a record amount of food grains in 2017-2018, topping the previous record that was set in 2016-2017.  “The year 2017-18 had, in fact, witnessed record production of all major crops like Rice (112.91 MT), wheat (99.70 MT), coarse cereals (46.99 MT) and pulses (25.23 MT),” the Times of India reported, citing official government data.

Notably, favorable climate conditions – and most importantly, abundant rainfall – spurred the record crop production.  “Backed by good monsoon rainfall last year, India had produced record 284.83 million tonnes of foodgrains in 2017-18 crop year,” the Times of India observed.

The 2017-18 Indian crop year merely continued a longstanding trend of record crop production as our planet modestly warms.  The international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reports that Indian farmers have successively set new records almost every year this decade.

The Fast Company and Reuters articles are not outliers.  Global warming activists in the establishment media are always looking to find and interview somebody who blames his own personal shortcomings and misfortune on global warming.  But if you are a farmer in India, and you are a failure at your craft, you are the exception rather than the rule.  The objective data show, without any room for debate, that crop production continues to improve and set records nearly every year as our modest global warming continues.

Perhaps Fast Company’s discredited claims about global warming, drought, and crop failures in India are an isolated error, and the article is correct about its claims regarding other countries and regions.  Actually, no.

According to agricultural economists at the World Bank, as reported by CEIC Data, Bangladesh enjoyed record crop production in 2016, the last year for which data are available.  The 2016 record beat out the previous record year, 2014, and was preceded by the third highest production year, 2015.  Do you see a pattern here?  Crop production in Bangladesh is 33 percent higher than it was merely a decade ago.  According to a World Bank report accompanying the 2016 data, “Bangladesh’s rural economy, and specifically agriculture, have been powerful drivers of poverty reduction in Bangladesh since 2000.”

How about Honduras?  The International Food Policy Research Institute, citing official government data, documents that in 2016 – the most recent year for which there are data – Honduras achieved record production for each of its three staple food crops.  Honduran farmers produce record amounts of rice, wheat, and maize.  The 2016 record beat the previous record, set in 2015.  The next most productive crop year was 2014, followed by 2013.  Moreover, Coffee Bureau Intelligence reports that coffee-drinkers and coffee farmers also have reason to rejoice – as Honduran coffee production is believed to have set new records in 2018.  “Since 2014-2015, Honduras coffee production has increased by more than 12% per year,” Coffee Bureau Intelligence reports.

Syrian crop production also defies alarmist claims.  United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization data show an approximately 50-percent increase in Syrian crop production since 1995.  Moreover, the Arab Spring democracy uprisings in Syria and elsewhere, which climate alarmists blame on global warming, occurred in 2011, a year in which Syria produced its eighth highest crop yields in history.

Fast Company cites four specific nations in support of its narrative that global warming is causing rampant crop failures, which in turn is causing mass migration.  Objective data show, beyond dispute, that Fast Company’s claims are flat-out wrong.  But in today’s agenda-driven media climate, don’t expect Fast Company, other media outlets, or Google News to post any corrections to the false reporting.

This article was originally presented on americanthinker.com