On Friday night, Stephanie Wilkinson, owner of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, kicked out Sarah Huckabee Sanders and seven members of her family because Sanders works for the president. “Progressives”–once again demonstrating their inability to think analogically–believe this ill-treatment of Sanders and her family is analogous to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

Once more for the obtuse among us, Jack Phillips didn’t refuse to serve homosexuals or kick them out of his bakery. He refused to create and sell a product for a type of event that violates his deeply held religious convictions. He served homosexuals regularly. The Red Hen restaurant refused to serve any product to a particular person and her family.

A Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) investigation discovered that the left-wing nonprofit is closely tied to four of the largest tech platforms on the planet, which routinely consult or collaborate with the SPLC in policing their platforms for “hate groups” or “hate speech,” and the findings were corroborated by Facebook itself.

“[The SPLC is on a list of] external experts and organizations [that Facebook works with] to inform our hate speech policies,” Facebook Spokeswoman Ruchika Budhraja informed the DCNF in an interview.

Facing users away from the right

Budhraja explained how outside groups are consulted by Facebook through one to three meetings in order to fashion its hate speech policies, but she would not name which specific organizations it worked with and insisted that they represent all political affiliations.

She then used a May 8 SPLC article that accused Facebook of inadequately censoring “anti-Muslim hate” in an attempt to prove the social media giant does not fully submit to the SPLC.

“We have our own process, and our processes are different and, I think, that’s why we get the criticism [from the SPLC], because organizations that are hate organizations by their standards don’t match ours,” Budhraja insisted, according to the DCNF. “That doesn’t mean that we don’t have a process in place, and that definitely doesn’t mean we want the platform to be a place for hate, but we aren’t going to map to the SPLC’s list or process.”

Following right-leaning users’ numerous complaints over the years about the bias of Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube, dozens of nationally renowned conservative leaders banded against the Internet platforms last month by issuing a statement condemning them for their censorship and suppression of conservative speech.

“Social media censorship and online restriction of conservatives and their organizations have reached a crisis level,” their joint statement read, according to Newsbusters. “Conservative leaders now have banded together to call for equal treatment on tech and social media.”

At the time, the SPLC was already suspected for contributing to the platforms’ liberal bias.

“The participants called for the tech giants to address the key areas of complaint, including lack of transparency, when removing content and deleting accounts and the imbalance of liberal content advisers – such as the Southern Poverty Law Center,” Fox News reported.

Amazon and the SPLC – a perfect left match

But Amazon trumps Facebook when it come to collaborating with the SPLC.

“Of the four companies, Amazon gives the SPLC the most direct authority over its platform, the DCNF found,” the DCNF’s Peter Hasson reported. “While Facebook emphasizes its independence from the SPLC, Amazon does the opposite: Jeff Bezos’ company grants the SPLC broad policing power over the Amazon Smile charitable program, while claiming to remain unbiased.”

In fact, an Amazon spokeswoman announced where the Internet giant gets its final word, but she would not say whether her company considers its leftist source as being unbiased.

“We remove organizations that the SPLC deems as ineligible,” the company’s spokeswoman told the DCNF. “[Amazon grants the SPLC that power] because we don’t want to be biased whatsoever.”

One of Amazon’s charitable programs under scrutiny for being in cahoots with the SPLC’s political agenda was targeted.

“The Smile program allows customers to identify a charity to receive 0.5 percent of the proceeds from their purchases on Amazon,” Hasson pointed out. “Customers have given more than $8 million to charities through the program since 2013, according to Amazon. Only one participant in the program, the SPLC, gets to determine which other groups are allowed to join it.”

It was found that the Smile program frowns upon conservatives, Christians and Jews, alike.

“Christian legal groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom – which recently successfully represented a Christian baker at the U.S. Supreme Court – are barred from the Amazon Smile program, while openly anti-Semitic groups remain, the DCNF found in May,” Hasson noted. “One month later, the anti-Semitic groups – but not the Alliance Defending Freedom – are still able to participate in the program.”

Another excuse was also given by Amazon for the way it directs its users to charities using its own – and the SPLC’s – standards and criteria.

“Charitable organizations must meet the requirements outlined in our participation agreement to be eligible for AmazonSmile,” an Amazon spokesperson told Fox News. “Organizations that engage in, support, encourage or promote intolerance, hate, terrorism, violence, money laundering or other illegal activities are not eligible. If at any point an organization violates this agreement, its eligibility will be revoked. Since 2013, Amazon has relied on the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control and the Southern Poverty Law Center to help us make these determinations. While this system has worked well, we do listen to and consider the feedback of customers and other stakeholders, which we will do here as well.”

Tweeting for the SPLC

The other social media giant also determines its enemies and allies, according to the SPLC.

“Twitter lists the SPLC as a ‘safety partner’ working with Twitter to combat ‘hateful conduct and harassment,’” Hassan impressed. “The platform also includes the Trust and Safety Council, which ‘provides input on our safety products, policies and programs,’ according to Twitter. Free speech advocates have criticized it as Orwellian.”

Twitter admitted it worked with some social policy groups, but would not single out the SPLC.

“[Twitter is] in regular contact with a wide range of civil society organizations and [nongovernmental organizations],” a Twitter spokeswoman told the DCNF.

Googly over the SPLC

And the world’s biggest web browser also taps into the SPLC’s political profiling scheme.

“Google uses the SPLC to help police hate speech on YouTube as part of YouTube’s ‘Trusted Flagger’ program … citing a source with knowledge of the agreement, [and] following that report, the SPLC confirmed [in March that] they’re policing hate speech on YouTube,” Hassan recounted. “The SPLC and other third-party groups in the ‘Trusted Flagger’ program work closely with YouTube’s employees to crack down on extremist content in two ways, according to YouTube.”

The strategic process effectively weeds out conservatives so users can get their fill of leftist content.

“First, the flaggers are equipped with digital tools allowing them to mass flag content for review by YouTube personnel,” he continued. “Second, the groups act as guides to YouTube’s content monitors and engineers who design the algorithms policing the video platform, but may lack the expertise needed to tackle a given subject.”

But this underhanded scheme has gone virtually undetected – with good reason.

“The SPLC is one of over 300 government agencies and nongovernmental organizations in the YouTube program – the vast majority of which remain hidden behind confidentiality agreements,” Hassan divulged.

The SPLC’s fake labels abound

Adding insult to injury, the SPLC has a track record showing that its designations are based more on left-leaning sentiments and emotions than on fact.

“The SPLC has consistently courted controversy in publishing lists of ‘extremists’ and ‘hate groups,’” the DCNF reporter maintained. “The nonprofit has been plagued by inaccuracies this year, retracting four articles in March and April alone.”

The SPLC’s anti-Trump agenda was recently exposed when it had to retract a series of its stories a few months ago.

“The well-funded nonprofit – which did not return a request for comment – deleted three Russia-related articles in March after challenges to their accuracy followed by legal threats,” Hassan recalled. “All three articles focused on drawing conspiratorial connections between anti-establishment American political figures and Russian influence operations in the United States.”

Its pro-Muslim bias was exposed the following month.

“The SPLC removed a controversial ‘anti-Muslim extremist’ list in April, after British Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz threatened to sue over his inclusion on the list,” Hassan continued. “The SPLC had accused the supposed-extremists of inciting anti-Muslim hate crimes.”

Those who have been vocal against Islamic Sharia law and Muslim militancy have regularly been targeted by the SPLC – including Somali-born women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who also made SPLC’s list.

“Ali – a victim of female genital mutilation who now advocates against the practice – is an award-winning human rights activist, but according to the SPLC’s since-deleted list, she was an ‘anti-Muslim extremist,’” Hassan informed.

Last August, Ali condemned Apple CEO Tim Cook for donating major funds to the SPLC and described the leftist nonprofit the following way:

“[The SPLC is] an organization that has lost its way, smearing people who are fighting for liberty and turning a blind eye to an ideology and political movement that has much in common with Nazism,” Ali declared, according to the DCNF.

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Dr. Benjamin Carson was emblazoned on the SPLC’s “extremist watch list” in 2015 because his political worldview aligns with conservatives.

“When embracing traditional Christian values is equated to hatred, we are approaching the stage where wrong is called right and right is called wrong,” the neurosurgeon Carson proclaimed on Facebook after discovering his name on SPLC’s list. “It is important for us to, once again, advocate true tolerance. That means being respectful of those with whom we disagree and allowing people to live according to their values without harassment. It is nothing but projectionism when some groups label those who disagree with them as haters.”

It took four months of backlash from conservatives for the SPLC to apologize and remove the “extremist” label from the 2016 Republican presidential candidate, who is now serving under the Trump administration.

And there have been severe consequences to the SPLC’s intentional mislabeling, as witnessed six years ago.

“Floyd Lee Corkins – who attempted a mass shooting at the conservative Family Research Center in 2012 – said he chose the organization for his act of violence because the SPLC listed them as a ‘hate group,’” Hassan noted.

Anyone or any group not aligned with the SPLC’s ultra-leftist ideas is a prime candidate for the nonprofit’s smear campaign, and its credibility has been challenged on a regular basis.

“The SPLC receives criticism from across the political spectrum for its smearing of conservative and centrist individuals and organizations,” Breitbart News reported.

As a result of the smears, some nonprofit organizations are hit financially by receiving less contributions.

“Conservative groups, like the Alliance Defending Freedom, also face regular smears by the SPLC,” Breitbart’s Allum Bokhari stressed. “As a result, they are barred from Amazon’s charity program.”

Even former President Barack Obama at one time chastised the SPLC for its extremist agenda.

“The far-left Southern Poverty Law Center was [even] too extreme for the Obama administration – but it’s just fine for Silicon Valley,” Fox News commented. “The Obama-era Justice Department once scolded the SPLC for overstepping ‘the bounds of zealous advocacy,’ after the organization labeled the non-profit Federation for American Immigration Reform a ‘hate group.’”

This article was originally published at OneNewsNow.com

I hated being a single parent. Still do. I am sure my grown children agree that being raised by Homer Simpson was horrible. They are all healthy and productive members of society, despite being raised by an ogre, in no small part because of our extended family. Aunts and uncles caulked the gaps left by my inadequacies, sins and failures.

Family is not a reality show or a how-to series on cable. I had a whole family until my wife went home to Christ in 1998, leaving three small children in my charge and care.

I did the best I could. Without my wife, my partner, my best pal, my conscience and the loving womb of all three children, family became an exercise in frustration and disappointments. You cannot have it all without things being whole.  Almost is never good enough.

Our society and the cultural propaganda exerting its doctrines upon us have been harping and chipping away at traditional marriage and family integrity for decade. As a result, family becomes whatever we want it to be—composed of vampires, zombies or visitors from outer space.

Murphy Brown was a television show that was called “groundbreaking,” because it challenged thousands of years of human joy and happiness: “The show has been seen as blazing a trail for single-mother characters in Ally McBeal, Sex and the City, Desperate Housewives” that “benefited from Bergen’s character going through a political maelstrom so none of them had to.”

Talk about some real Dan’l Boone courage.

Well, that was Time Magazine’s Richard Zoglin and not Francis Parkman talking about real ground breakers.

Television—network and cable—controls the messaging. Love is polyamorous instant gratification. Sex has no consequence. Fathers are jokes.  Mothers are best when single. Children are malleable props. Disappointments and set-backs are the mean of destroying marriage. The heart wants what the heart wants.

Death happens. Widows and even widowers can do it alone through their vale of tears, but it is not easy and it’s far from ideal. The freely chosen legal cleaving of marriage that our society’s desire for instant gratification and aversion to pain recommend should be a last resort and only in the case of an abusive spouse.

This life can be and often is a vale of tears, but marriage makes it less so.  Thousands of years of husband and wife partnerships is really the ground-breaking rubric—notwithstanding the views of Norman Lear and HBO.

IFI works diligently to serve the Christian community in Illinois with email alerts, video reports, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences and cultural commentaries. We do not accept government funds nor do we run those aggravating popup ads to generate funds.  We depend solely on the support of readers like you.

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  We need your support, and are deeply grateful for those who stand with.

Last week the people of Ireland voted to repeal Ireland’s Eighth Amendment that granted “equal protection of the right to life of the preborn child and his or her mother.” After the repeal, “legislators will have the power to legalize abortion for any reason up to birth.”

Leading up to the vote, however, Facebook, Twitter and Google all weighed in — arguably on the side of the pro-abort forces:

Google, Facebook, Twitter ban pro-life ads on Ireland abortion referendum

Leading up to the May 25th referendum in Ireland on repealing the Eighth Amendment, Google announced that it would suspend all advertising related to the subject. The move has been condemned by pro-life groups as an attempt “to rig the election.”

In the announcement, Google claimed the decision came as part of “our update around election integrity efforts globally.” Pro-abortion groups applauded the decision, but as observers have noted, the only ads related to the referendum appear to be pro-life ads, so the ban would effectively benefit the pro-abortion campaign and harm campaign efforts for life in Ireland.

Also, from the article:

The repeal campaign has benefitted from marked pro-abortion bias in the media, celebrity endorsements and significant funding from the international abortion lobby. As such, the pro-life campaigners are at a disadvantage and have used online advertising on Google and social media platforms to reach voters with their message. The pro-life groups Save the 8th and the Iona Institute issued a joint statement that read in part, “Online was the only platform available to the No campaign to speak to voters directly. That platform is now being undermined in order to prevent the public from hearing the message of one side.”

And this:

Twitter has also announced that it will suspend ads related to the referendum ahead of the May 25th vote. Twitter has a confirmed history of censoring pro-life content.

Facebook also “jumped on the bandwagon” to ban ads. The article notes that “the pro-abortion side is far from immune from outside influence as this side has received significant monetary support from George Soros and other globalist elites.” The question whether the social media giants would’ve issued the restriction “if a surge in advertising had come from the Yes [pro-abortion] side?” is worth asking.

Facebook claimed “neutrality” in a statement: “We understand the sensitivity of this campaign and will be working hard to ensure neutrality at all stages… Our goal is simple: to help ensure a free, fair and transparent vote on this important issue.”

Do you believe them?

There is plenty of reason not to. After all, the way the social media giants have been caught censoring conservatives, the claim of neutrality isn’t believable in the least. To read more about that — skim the many articles linked here.

After the 2016 elections, those social media giants realized that if their political agenda was to be advanced, they were going to have to clamp down even further on the information being provided by conservative organizations. Here was a headline at The Daily Signal: “After Royally Screwing Up the Election, the Media Want Control Over Your Facebook News.”

If the social media giants are indeed Leftists and committed to silencing conservatives, what is to be done?

An interesting article recently posted at National Review about whether those big tech companies are violating anti-trust laws. Here is an excerpt:

There is a strong Republican antitrust tradition.

The big digital monopolies demand that we conform to their worldview and shut us down when we dissent. They have too much power. They are are threat to this country. Congress is doing nothing about it. It’s time to complain, while we still can. #Tucker @FoxNews

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) April 27, 2018

When he tweeted these words, Carlson was expressing a sentiment that many on the right have come to embrace. People are concerned, with good reason, that big tech companies discriminate against conservatives. Numerous conservative outlets have had their videos demonetized on Google’s YouTube. PragerU is appealing their loss in a lawsuit over that. A study by The Western Journal showed that a change to Facebook’s algorithm disproportionately harmed conservative sites.

In normal circumstances, this wouldn’t be a problem for government to solve, but social media has come to dominate our national conversation. Large political websites thrive or die based on changes to Facebook and Google algorithms. Everyone from cable news to newspapers to online-only publications create and tweak their content based on how they think it will play on social media. A study has also shown that Google search results can have a frighteningly large impact on elections:

Randomized, controlled experiments conducted with more than 10,000 people from 39 countries suggest that one company alone — Google LLC, which controls about 90 percent of online search in most countries — has likely been determining the outcomes of upwards of 25 percent of the national elections in the world for several years now, with increasing impact each year as Internet penetration has grown.

Keep in mind that we’re not talking about individuals or even whole industries here; we’re talking about unaccountable monopolies with detailed information about hundreds of millions of Americans, billions in cash reserves, and the capability to shape what is discussed and what is not discussed in America in a way that no book, radio show, television show or individual has ever had.

The entire article can be found here.

Not everyone agrees. You can read an opposing view here.

Earlier this year, IFI asked the question “What is the Conservatives Movement’s Answer to Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube’s ‘Viewpoint Discrimination’?‘” That question is still on the table.

So many smaller groups often rely on the relatively inexpensive social media advertising options to help make more people aware that there are other arguments other than those coming from the Leftist “mainstream” media, Hollywood, and any number of other outlets.

This issue, and this challenge, isn’t going away any time soon. There is plenty of talent and resources available on the conservative side of the aisle. Eventually that talent and those dollars will have to get serious about winning the information war — with the help of Leftist social media giants or not.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

“No one who had once fallen into the hands of the Thought Police ever escaped in the end.
They were corpses waiting to be sent back to the grave.” ~ George Orwell, 1984

On Tuesday, there was a looong article in the Chicago Tribune’s business section on Starbucks “unconscious bias” training (which, unless Starbucks’ employees are unconscious, should probably be called “subconscious-bias training,” but—to borrow from millennials—whatever).

For those sub-rock dwellers among us, some background: Last month, one young white barista in Philadelphia told a black Starbucks visitor—who bought nothing—that he couldn’t use the restroom as per policies in some Starbucks’ stores. Subsequently, he and his friend—who also purchased nothing—were asked to leave and refused, after which the store manager called the police who arrested them. Calling the police seems an odd response since many people linger for hours doing work at Starbucks after buying one cup of overpriced coffee, but the response from the corporate office seems equally odd.

In addition to paying an undisclosed amount of money as a financial settlement to the two men who spent several hours in police custody and offering to pay for their college educations via an online program available to Starbucks employees, Starbucks management closed 8,000 stores at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday in order to re-educate 175,000 employees on their “unconscious bias.” What this means is that re-educators will attempt to replace the bias of all 175,000 unconscious employees with a new set of biases.

The looong article recommends that bias “trainers… measure people’s understanding of the concepts before they start, so there is a baseline for measuring progress,” and that companies “bake parts of [the bias training] into performance reviews.”

One bias-training program sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League, even includes a written test. Gotta make sure all unconscious employees regurgitate back the RIGHT biases.

To be perfectly clear, I’m opposed to social injustice. Any stores that limited restroom-usage to those who bought something should have applied such policy equally to humans of color as well as colorless humans—well, except for colorful and colorless young mothers in the midst of toilet-training toddlers. They should have access to every restroom in the known universe.

This costly effort in virtue-signaling from the perpetually virtue-signaling Starbucks got me to cogitating. Since, according to Erin Thomas, head of a “diversity and inclusion strategy consulting firm in Chicago,” “everyone harbors” bias, I’m wondering if people of color harbor any biases against whites or if “progressives” harbor any biases against theologically orthodox Christians that undermine social justice, tolerance, unity, peace, and comity.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Starbucks-and-Its-Unconscious-Employees.mp3

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.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

Dahleen Glanton, columnist for the Chicago Tribune, recently penned a column about homosexuality that began with this ironic statement: “It is painful to acknowledge one’s own intolerance.” Glanton doesn’t say who’s experiencing this pain, but one thing’s for sure: It’s not her. Her entire column is an exercise in religious intolerance.

Glanton condemns as “intolerant” those who believe that “two men or two women joined in holy matrimony is somehow unnatural,” or who believe that “such an act makes a mockery of the institution of marriage.”

Glanton-the-Tolerant writes that theologically orthodox Christians who accept as true the clear teaching of Scripture on homosexuality and marriage “don’t even recognize their own bigotry,” suggesting they contribute to a “climate of hatred” and “are wallowing in self-righteous oblivion.”

Glanton then makes this comical claim:

It is easy to read between the lines of the Bible that God doesn’t favor homosexuals. At least that’s what many churchgoing folks choose to believe.

Yes, she actually said “between the lines.”

While pontificating on what the Bible says about homosexuality, she reveals the embarrassing extent of her biblical ignorance. Maybe her ignorance and intolerance are connected.

So, let’s look at those lines between which Glanton claims some churchgoing folks choose to read God’s disfavor:

• “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

• “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:13).

• “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:26-27).

• “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

• “Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:9-10).

• “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 1:7).

Since the focus of Glanton’s column is same-sex faux-marriage, here’s another relevant passage from Scripture. This is Jesus speaking:

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. (Mark 10:6-9)

I’m choosing to read in these lines and the spaces between that Jesus says marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Perhaps Glanton is unaware that until the latter half of the latter half of the 20^th Century, there was not a single biblical scholar in the history of the church that thought Scripture teaches anything other than that God condemns homosexual activity.

What set off Glanton’s intolerance radar was the disapproval of homosexuality on the parts of parents and school administrators. Parents in Elgin, Illinois objected to music teacher Nathan Etter sharing with first-grade students that he was “married” to a man. Parents in Arlington, Texas objected to art teacher Stacy Bailey showing fourth-graders photos of the woman she was going to “marry.” And the administration of a Miami, Florida Catholic school fired first-grade teacher Jocelyn Morffi after she “married” a woman—in defiance of Catholic doctrine.

Stacy Bailey is suing her district, “seeking… reinstatement at the school and possible damages.” Her lawsuit claims she was “born that way.” It will be interesting to see what hard evidence her attorney provides to prove that claim.

“Progressives” believe that if married heterosexual couples are permitted to share with students information about their spouses, homosexual couples should be permitted to do likewise. But sexually differentiated marriages are not controversial, whereas homosexual couplings have been controversial throughout history and in all corners of the world.

Moreover, equality demands that we treat like things alike, and the two types of unions are not merely unlike. They’re antithetical.

Someone should ask Glanton how she thinks homosexual teachers should demonstrate tolerance for parents who view homosexual acts and relationships as profoundly immoral and don’t want their little ones exposed to any ideas about homosexuality when they’re too young to understand critical ideas about morality, theology, epistemology (how we know what we know), ontology (the nature of things that exist), and teleology (the study of design and purpose of things that exist). These are the bases on which a moral assessment of homosexuality depend.

And how does Glanton think homosexuals—including  homosexual teachers—should  demonstrate tolerance for the Catholic Church, which teaches that homosexual attraction is disordered and homosexual acts sinful?

Glanton writes glowingly about the cultural shift in attitudes toward the legal recognition of intrinsically non-marital same-sex unions as marriages. She waxes jubilant that the number of people who “believe marriage should occur only between a man and a woman” is decreasing, including among people who identify as Christians. She cites a survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute that shows increasing support for same-sex pseudo-marriage among diverse demographic groups. Apparently, what the Bible clearly says carries less weight for Glanton than does the number of people who abandon the Bible’s clear teaching.

The survey identifies particularly strong support among 18-29-year-0lds. Their support should surprise no one since this is the generation that has been exposed to the most pro-homosexuality propaganda and the most pervasive censorship of dissenting ideas. Coincidentally, this is the generation least likely to have been raised by theologically orthodox and committed Christians.

Glanton also prophesies:

They [i.e., “self-righteous” Christian bigots] are hoping that one day the law [i.e., laws permitting same-sex faux-marriage] will be reversed and the issue will go away for good. But that’s not going to happen, and it’s time those holdouts accepted it.

Not being a prophet myself, I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this prophesy, but it may well be borne out. Scripture teaches that “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.”

But as for true Christ-followers accepting the absurd notion that two people of the same-sex can be in reality married? Never.

Glanton proclaims that “people don’t even recognize their own bigotry…. They just don’t think that people who happen to be gay deserve the right others have to choose with whom to make a lifetime commitment.”

Glanton is wrong. While people may just “happen” to experience same-sex attraction, they don’t just “happen ” to affirm it as a positive part of their identity. That is a choice they make.

Glanton is wrong again. Christians don’t say anything about the “right” of homosexuals to make a lifetime commitment to persons of the same sex. Rather, Christians say marriage is something. It has a nature central to which is sexual differentiation and without which a union is not marital. Christians and other conservatives say that homosexuals have no more “right” to unilaterally jettison the criterion of sexual differentiation from the definition of marriage than polyamorists have a right to jettison the criterion related to number of partners or sibling-lovers have a “right” to jettison the criterion of consanguinity (i.e., blood kinship).

Glanton describes the legalization of same-sex faux marriage as “civil rights for gay people.” First, there is no civil right for one special interest group to redefine marriage, and second, homosexuals have always had the right to participate in the institution of marriage. They were not seeking a right to marry. They were seeking to redefine marriage.

Without engaging the ideas of a single theologically orthodox biblical scholar, the biblically ignorant and sanctimonious Glanton refers to biblical orthodoxy as “baggage” from “religious teachings” and as “outdated beliefs… based on pure ignorance.”

While Glanton considers biblical prescriptions for marriage and proscriptions of homosexual acts “outdated,” here are the words of Jesus:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Glanton said one thing with which I heartily agree:

It takes a conscious effort to acknowledge one’s own intolerance. But it takes an even greater effort to go through the process of learning and understanding what is necessary to reverse it.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Intolerant-Journalist-Demonstrates-Biblical-Ignorance.mp3

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: goo.gl/O0iRDc to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

There’s a troubling piece titled “Time for a Compromise on Transgenderism” posted on National Review online and written by purportedly conservative, “gay vegetarian”  J. J. McCullough. In condescending language, McCullough argues that it’s time for Americans to hop on the fast train to the Shangri-La of polymorphous perversity. In McCullough’s view, now that Americans have ceased “judging” homosexuality, they should cease “judging” the science-denying “trans” ideology.

He engages in the worst kind of demagoguery in his unholy effort to normalize the “trans” ideology by insulting those who find the ideology destructive and the demands of its advocates tyrannical.

McCullough makes this myopic statement about the cultural transformation of America on the issue of homosexuality:

Disinterest in judging homosexuality is not an attitude government has coerced Americans into, it is the product of a free people’s informed knowledge.

In McCullough’s presumptuous worldview, “informed knowledge” leads inevitably to “disinterest in judging homosexuality.” For clarity—something in which McCullough seems little interested—let’s establish from the outset that judging homosexuality is distinct from judging homosexuals. Judging homosexuality means to make a judgment about the moral status of homosexual activity. Informed, knowledgeable, wise, and loving people can, do, and should make the judgment that homosexual activity is not moral and jeopardizes the temporal and eternal lives of those who engage in and affirm it.

McCullough goes on:

To the extent that America is still having any political debate about homosexuality, it has evolved into a more substantial conversation about religious liberty…. These are difficult debates but are also far more useful than those of earlier eras, which mostly centered on demagogic judgment of the gay ‘lifestyle’ untethered to any tangible constitutional principle or policy objective.

His description of the debates of earlier eras makes me wonder how much he knows about those debates. Countless debates of earlier eras were both useful and substantive.

Surely McCullough is aware that there are non-demagogic bases other than “tangible constitutional principles or policy objectives” on which to debate or to which to tether debates on homosexuality. In fact, debates tethered to ontology, epistemology, theology, and philosophy are far more substantive and essential than those tethered to tangible constitutional principles and policy objectives. And these are the bases on which a free and informed people should be debating.

But “progressives” aren’t interested in debates so-tethered when epithet-hurling, bad analogies, and false claims work effectively to change public views and silence dissent. You know the epithets commonly hurled, like “hater” and “bigot.” McCullough raised epithet-hurling to an art form, calling those who still make moral judgments about sexual behavior immature, unfair, dishonest, ostentatious, insensible, boorish, petty, cruel, and regressive.

Can anyone claim—I mean, with a straight face, truth-telling lips, and a small, perky nose—that Americans have freely arrived at their “informed,” non-judgmental view of homosexuality? Government schools advance the leftist sexuality ideology and censor dissenting views. Corporate America advances the leftist sexuality ideology (look at which organizations they support and look at their ads) and punishes dissenters. Remember Brendan Eich? The mainstream press is in the tank for homosexuality, celebrating as “heroic” those who announce their predilection for erotic activity with persons of the same sex and scorns those who come to reject their prior “gay” identities. The politicized professional medical and mental health communities are controlled by leftists, and small committees create homosexuality-affirming policies that they imply to the public are uniformly embraced by all members. Let’s not forget the arts and Madison Ave, or the wolves in sheep’s clothing who are infiltrating churches. Just try saying in any public forum that you believe homosexuality is immoral. You’ll likely end up on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate list and out of a job. Freedom doesn’t taste so free anymore.

McCullough then moves on to a harsh indictment of anyone who rejects the “trans” mythology, criticizing as “theatrical” the natural and wholly sound repulsion people feel about barbaric amputations of healthy breasts and castrations. McCullough evidently believes that the perduring presence of a human phenomenon is some sort of argument in favor of its normalization:

[M]ost adults could admit [transgenderism] does seem like a rather persistent aspect of humanity…. If we concede that transgenderism is not going away, and is not something anyone intends to exert effort toward ending, then Americans, especially conservative ones, should reflect on our culture’s honest and fair attitude toward homosexuality and acknowledge that the most sensible path out of the present acrimony will probably require similar compromise. Some degree of cultural ceasefire and consensus seems the only path for both sides to maintain a degree of pride while avoiding a more radical, disruptive societal transformation.

McCullough doesn’t explain how unwavering commitments to sexual truth and morality are inconsistent with maintaining a “degree of pride.” Assertions without evidence are more his gig.

Here McCullough is tilting in the direction of a “naturalistic fallacy,” which suggests that because something exists, it’s good. Does he believe Americans should “compromise” on every “persistent aspect of humanity” that isn’t going away? If not, on what basis does McCullough decide which persistent aspect of humanity ought not be accommodated? What sorts of compromises are Americans obliged to make and who decides? So many questions untethered from tangible constitutional principles or policy objectives.

I would argue that radical, disruptive societal transformation has been caused by the “trans” ideology and will be exacerbated in intensity and extent by further compromise, resulting in incalculable harm to countless lives.

McCullough then again ridicules conservatives in his morality-untethered effort to compel acquiescence to compromise:

Part one of the compromise will be borne by cultural conservatives and traditionalists. It asks for broad tolerance for the reality that transgender men and women exist, and are entitled to basic human dignity, just like everyone else. This… impl[ies] that acts like ostentatiously calling people by pronouns they don’t want… are boorish and petty. It means acknowledging that arbitrary discrimination against transgender people is a cruel bigotry like any other.

Can I get a “wowzer”?

1.) Conservatives have never denied that “transgender men and women exist” (and by “transgender men and women,” McCullough means men and women who pretend to be the sex they are not).

2.)  Conservatives agree that those who embrace a “trans” identity are entitled to human dignity—which their embrace of a “trans” identity undermines. McCullough’s implied proposition—which is wholly untethered from tangible constitutional principles and policy objectives—is that respect for the dignity of “trans”-identifying persons requires silence on the “trans” mythology.

3.)  Without warrant, McCullough characterizes as “ostentatious” opposition to bearing false witness (i.e., calling “trans”-identifying persons by incorrect pronouns). Maybe he could tell conservatives how they can live in accordance with their belief that lying is wrong without acting “ostentatiously”?

4.)  What is “arbitrary” discrimination? Would prohibitions of objectively male persons in women’s private spaces be arbitrary discrimination? If so, how is it more “arbitrary” to believe that access to private spaces should correspond to objective, immutable biological sex than to believe it should correspond to subjective, internal feelings about one’s “gender identity”?

Perhaps McCullough doesn’t believe sex-segregated private spaces are arbitrary. Perhaps his claim that “Tolerance does not necessitate a purge of any and all public manifestations of the gender binary in the name of extreme exceptions to the rule,” means he approves of sex-segregated private spaces. The problem is we don’t know, because he doesn’t say.

Unfortunately, his maybe-sop to conservatives was followed by yet another insult:

Transgenderism seems to be the issue on which many on the right prefer to let loose their inner reactionary, which then further rationalizes petty tyranny on the left.

McCullough believes that opposition to the science-denying myth that men can, in reality, be women or vice versa is “reactionary,” and that any who cling to that rational belief are responsible for “trans” tyranny. Conservatives just can’t win. Refuse to embrace irrationality and they’re reactionary and culpable for the unethical responses of the irrational.

On one aspect of this debate, McCullough demonstrates a modicum of wisdom:

[T]he risk of psychologically and physically damaging children by encouraging or enabling them to embrace transgender identities before pubescence must be acknowledged as a valid concern backed by credible evidence. Protecting children from the confusing, anxious, dangerous world of adult sexuality and sexual identity before their developing minds can fully conceptualize its complexities is not bigotry, it is good sense, and the sovereign right of every parent. It should be the responsibility of the public education system as well.

But read carefully: McCullough applies this sound warning only to pre-pubescent children—not to all minors.

McCullough concludes with more manipulation, this time employing two types of fallacies (i.e., chronological snobbery and appeal to emotion):

American history teaches that it is neither the radical nor the regressive who are ultimately vindicated in their response to cultural disruption, but rather those cautious conservatives who assign themselves the difficult task of thoughtfully working through the new and unexpected in the cause of preserving a social order as peaceful and free as the one that came prior.

Who will now rise to that task?

Well, history teaches lots of things. It also teaches that not everything new and unexpected is good or can contribute to preserving a peaceful, free social order. It teaches that cultural disruption often follows the embrace of false, destructive ideologies and that people can be mightily influenced to acquiesce by propaganda, sophistry, peer pressure, and coercive policies untethered from sound ontology, epistemology and morality. And it teaches that cautious thoughtfulness can include courageous commitment to transcendent, enduring moral truth.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/National-Review-Online-Demagogue-Taunts-Conservatives.mp3

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: goo.gl/O0iRDc to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

Full disclosure: I hate roasts of any kind.

White House Correspondents’ Dinner gut-busting pasquinade by jokester Michelle Wolf makes it difficult to refrain from being as despicable as she was.

First, some of her jokes:

“Of course, Trump isn’t here…. I would drag him here myself, but it turns out the president of the United States is the one p***y you’re not allowed to grab.”

“I know there’s a lot of people who want me to talk about Russia and Putin and collusion, but I’m not gonna do that because there’s a lot of liberal media here, and I’ve never wanted to know what any of you look like when you orgasm. Except for you, Jake Tapper.”

“I’m never really sure what to call Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Is it Sarah Sanders, is it Sarah Huckabee Sanders, is it Cousin Huckabee, is it Aunt Huckabee Sanders? What’s Uncle Tom but for white women who disappoint other white women?”

She has a First Amendment right to be nasty, brutish, and vulgar, but that doesn’t mean doing so is right. I guess if you call it a “joke,” it’s not bullying. Last night was a teachable moment for all those kids who take pleasure in making nasty sport of others. Wolf taught them that it’s okay to be thoughtless, mean-spirited, and distasteful as long as you’re part of the cool crowd–you know, the crowd that’s on the “right side of history,” like the sanctimonious Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, and David Letterman.

Oh, and here’s another of her rib-ticklers, this one on abortion–a topic that’s always good for a laugh:

“Don’t knock it till you try it. And when you do try it, really knock it, you gotta get that baby out of there.”

One tidbit of info about Wolf from CNN editor-at-large Chris Cilizza: “Wolf knew exactly what she was doing…. Did the average person know who Wolf was before Saturday night?… She is the talk of every Sunday talk show…. On a related note, her Netflix series, ‘The Break with Michelle Wolf’–comes on May 27.”

Vulgar, mean, divisive, self-serving, and calculating. Wolf should go into politics–on the cool kids’ team.

Take ACTION: Please click HERE to contact the White House Correspondents’ Association to express your view on Michelle Wolf’s performance.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Michelle-Wolfs-Lewd-Lupine-Pasquinade.mp3

Worldview Conference THIS SATURDAY!

Worldview has never been so important than it is today!  The contemporary culture is shaping the next generation’s understanding of faith far more than their faith is shaping their understanding of culture. The annual IFI Worldview Conference is a phenomenal opportunity to reverse that trend.

This year we are excited to have well-know apologist John Stonestreet leading our session.  Please join us this Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

An April 13, 2018 USA Today op-ed titled “Make an End-of-life plan or Lose your Money and Choices in your Dying Days” by Hattie Bryant begins with the statement “End-of-life care can bankrupt your family and rob you of choices. End the denial about dying. Make a plan in case you end up seriously ill and frail.” (Emphasis added)

Ms. Bryant is very upfront about using the economic argument about aging and the enormous toll it can take financially and personally on the family as well as medical costs. She states that “in 2011, Medicare spent $554 billion and 28%, or about $170 billion, on patients’ last six months of life. After $170 billion is spent, those patients are still dead.”

Her solution is a new kind of economic advance directive she developed (and is selling as a book titled “I’ll Have It My Way: Taking Control of End-of-Life Decisions“ ) “that deals with how you want your funds spent when you are seriously ill or frail.” (All emphasis added)

SHOULD WE HAVE A “DUTY TO DIE”?

Back in 1984, Governor Richard Lamm of Colorado found himself in the middle of a firestorm of outrage when, as the New York Times reported, “Governor Lamm Asserts Elderly, If Very Ill, Have a ‘Duty to Die”.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

“Elderly people who are terminally ill have a ”duty to die and get out of the way” instead of trying to prolong their lives by artificial means, Gov. Richard D. Lamm of Colorado said Tuesday.

People who die without having life artificially extended are similar to ”leaves falling off a tree and forming humus for the other plants to grow up,” the Governor told a meeting of the Colorado Health Lawyers Association at St. Joseph’s Hospital.

”You’ve got a duty to die and get out of the way,” said the 48-year-old Governor. ”Let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life.”

This philosophy was echoed in 2014 by one of the architects of Obamacare, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, when he wrote “Why I Hope to Die at 75-An argument that society and families—and you—will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly” for The Atlantic Magazine.

At age 57 at the time, Dr. Emanuel states that while death is a loss, there “is a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long is also a loss” that “renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived. It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world. It transforms how people experience us, relate to us, and, most important, remember us. We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic.” (Emphasis added)

He states that he will stop trying to prolong his own life by age 75.

CONCLUSION

Helping to care for many terminally ill or seriously disabled relatives, friends and patients of all ages for many decades both professionally and personally, I have a different perspective.

We are all born dependent on others for care and many of us need at least some help from others at the end of our lives. This can be hard at times-as even parents of newborns will attest-but the rewards are great both for the helper and the person being helped.

I remember when my mother with Alzheimer’s and terminal thyroid cancer was dying in 1988. It wasn’t the most convenient time for us, to say the least. I was a suddenly single parent with three young children and financially struggling.  My mother no longer recognized me but, as I told a friend, the most important issue was that I recognized her.  As a family, we did what was medically reasonable for my mother to help her without either prolonging or hastening her dying.

Taking care of my mother was a wonderful, if occasionally difficult, experience and I am grateful that we were able to keep her at home almost to the very end.

The final result was that my mother was kept  safe, comfortable and loved. Her funeral was truly a celebration of her life and my children learned an important lesson about the circle of life and taking care of each other. We still talk fondly about their time helping with grandma, even after 30 years.

When I made out my own advance directive, I made sure that it was as protective as possible against a hastened death. I don’t fear death. I do fear the bioethicists  and others who use economics and fear to push especially older people into prematurely signing away their rights to even basic care and what this does to our society.

This article was originally published at NancyValko.com

Last year the Federal Communications Commission overturned the Obama-era policy (referred to as “net neutraliy”) that “had placed Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon under the strictest-ever regulatory oversight.”

The “net neutrality” debate has gone for several years but is now back in the news as a state rather than a federal issue. Last year, the attorneys general from over twenty states, including Illinois, sued to overturn the FCC’s action. Now legislation has been introduced in Springfield to apply “net neutrality” principles to Internet service providers that operate in Illinois.

The Illinois Family Institute occasionally addresses things that seem to be outside the realm of what would be considered “pro-family” issues. A closer look reveals that, as I’ve said often, all the issues are the same. Giving just one example of my point, the policy debate is typically between those who want more government and those who want less.

Three years ago, social issues commentator Stella Morabito wrote an article titled “15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality: Don’t fall for the ‘marriage equality’ sales pitch. It’s a deception.” In it, she wrote (and notice her reference to “net neutrality”):

Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.

The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

She goes on in her article to discuss the problem of “unintended consequences” that result when too many “Americans are in a fog” about the details backing up Leftist policy proposals.

I confess to not having investigated the issue of “net neutrality” until I was asked to write about it for IFI. Like a lot of people, I rely on writers and policy experts I’m familiar with and trust to provide short cuts for me to figure out which is the right course of action. Unfortunately, sometimes I disagree with my favorite writers, so that reliance is not foolproof.

In this case, however, I do side with “my trusted advisers.”

What’s in a Name?

Note Stella Morabito’s title mentioned above: “‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality.”

That reminds me of the “Affordable Care Act”? Like millions of others, my own health care policy soon became unaffordable after that monstrosity was enacted.

Leftists know how to deceive, so when something is called “net neutrality,” watch out. As one Chicago Democrat said, “A free and open internet is important to promoting a democratic society.” We have good reasons to suspect that “free and open,” means expensive and closed.

What it net neutrality? To its supporters, it is big government looking out for us little guys. Its opponents see it as a power grab by bureaucrats and lobbyists. Supporters believe it is our friendly and helpful government coming to the rescue of helpless people against large meanie corporations. Opponents say is it more government meddling that makes things worse.

Since the FCC acted, the cry from Leftists nationwide is “The fight for net neutrality is just beginning!” At the other end of the political spectrum, Heartland Institute president Tim Huelskamp, Ph.D. and former Kansas Congressman, said: “The FCC’s vote today [over-turning Obama’s regulation] is a vote for freedom from big government control of the internet.”

In the same article, Heartland policy expert Seton Motley agreed:

“The Trump administration is rightly and reasonably restoring that pre-2015 status — you know, the one that in 20 years transformed the internet from ‘What’s that?’ into one-sixth of our $18 trillion economy. There was nothing wrong with that internet. In fact, there was trillions and trillions of dollars’ worth of right with it.”

Seton then took the gloves off:

“Net neutrality is more of a religious concept than an economic one. Old-fashioned, heavy-handed utility regulation is what these zealots are really asking for. Their followers, like lemmings, support them based on ignorance, foolishness, and, as we have seen in some cases, malevolence. [Federal Communications Commission] Chairman Ajit Pai and the other FCC commissioners who joined him deserve our thanks for standing up to this mob and putting the interests of the country, as well as sound economic principles, first.”

Yes, I side with them.

That’s the big picture. For those who want to learn more specifics about the impact of having or not having “net neutrality,” below are several recommended articles and some excerpts from them. Included in the following is an explanation of why the words “net neutrality” are used, some technical information, and a review of similar regulatory actions by the government that impeded genuine technological progress.

* * * * *

Recommended Articles

How Ditching Net Neutrality Will Give Consumers More And Better Options

Do you really want ‘all or nothing’ to be your only choice in Internet plans? That’s what you get with so-called ‘net neutrality.’

From the article:

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, who supports overturning so-called net neutrality, told Reason in an interview: “It’s telling that the first investigations that the prior FCC initiated under these so-called Net Neutrality rules were involving free data offerings…To me it’s just absurd to say that the government should stand in the way of consumers who want to get, and companies that want to provide, free data.”

Letting Business Evolve Freely Makes Stuff Better Faster

The FCC under the Obama administration seemed to assume that “the more things change, the more we should force them to stay the same.” But the new and improved gadgetry we’ve grown accustomed to over the past couple decades has accompanied business models almost as innovative as the technology itself. We have “freemium” models for software, a dozen monetization strategies for websites, ride-hailing apps with experimental pricing algorithms, subscription-based video streaming services, and tons more creative ways to connect users and providers.

Other points made in the article:

• “Business is constantly evolving along with our technology to serve our varied interests. So why would we treat Internet service providers (ISPs) any differently than providers of other goods and services?”
• “Why stifle innovation by shoving them into the categorical box of “utility,” snapping the lid shut, and then sitting on it?”
• The FCC chairman said that “80 percent of fixed wireless providers have ‘held back on investing’ in infrastructure because of these [net neutrality] rules. While new tech may increase speeds and sites will continue to evolve, government has effectively frozen in place the way Internet is packaged and paid for. That can only serve the interests of the well-established players.

So, wait, big corporations like this governmental meddling? Yes.

• “It’s been harder for small ISPs to invest and expand under net neutrality the past two years. This set of policies hasn’t done anything to break up the pseudo-monopolies of Comcast and other Big Evil Corporations.”
• Under our current system, the giant telecom companies might be able to dominate the industry with terrible customer service, mediocre speeds, high prices, and opaque contracts forever.

Here is Daniel John Sobieski writing at American Thinker (another one of my “advisers”):

Net neutrality’s dubious value is made obvious by the misleading way Democrats and many news outlets reported the decision. “F.C.C. plans net neutrality repeal in a victory for telecoms,” wrote the New York Times. Missing from the headline or lede was that the decision was a loss for Netflix, Amazon, Google, and other corporate giants that provide content.

Liberals oppose the free flow of information they can’t control and in the name of providing equal access to all they sought to regulate the access of everybody. They, in effect, sought to put toll booths and speed bumps on the information superhighway.

. . .

President Obama feared the free flow of information as a threat to his power grabs and attempt to fundamentally transform the United States. Just as cable news eliminated the old guard network’s role as gatekeepers of what we saw and heard, the Internet freed information consumers to seek the truth and speak their minds in an unfettered environment.

Under net neutrality, the FCC took for itself the power to regulate how Internet providers manage their networks and how they serve their customers. The FCC would decide how and what information could flow through the Internet, all in the name of providing access to the alleged victims of corporate greed.

The Internet, perhaps as much as the first printing press, has freed the minds of men from the tyranny of those gatekeepers who know that if you can control what people say and know, you can control the people themselves. And that is what President Obama feared. In a May 2010 commencement speech to graduates at Hampton University in Virginia, President Obama complained that too much information is actually a threat to democracy.

The article includes what Obama had to say — you should read it and image what the reaction would’ve been if President Donald Trump had said that.

Again, here is Sobieski:

Net neutrality was not designed to liberate but to suppress. It is the Fairness Doctrine of the Internet that like Obama’s war on Fox News and conservative talk radio is designed to marginalize and silence those who disagree with those in power.

Here again is Robert Tracinski:

AT&T’s Monopoly Offers A Cautionary Tale For Net Neutrality

The history of AT&T shows how the Internet as we know it was born out of rejecting the policies that are the backbone of ‘net neutrality.’

Last week’s announcement that the Federal Communications Commission will soon vote to roll back “net neutrality” regulations has produced a lot of hysterical overreaction, with headlines proclaiming, “FCC Is Revving Up to Destroy the Internet as We Know It.”

This obviously counts on the audience’s ignorance of history. The Internet started in 1969 (depending on what you count as the Internet), and the Internet “as we know it,” i.e., what we used to call the World Wide Web, has been around for 22 years. For most of that time, the idea that the FCC has anything at all to do with the Internet would have been considered ridiculous (as it still should be). So I don’t think reversing a regulation that was only imposed two years ago is going to DESTROY the Internet.

I recommend all these articles. The next one gives a terrific history lesson, and dramatic real-life examples of how government regulation can impede innovation and (dare we use the word progressives claim ownership of…) “progress.”

Here the article’s close:

“It’s a tragedy,” [technology entrepreneur Bill] Frezza says, “to see people using the same arguments that were used back in 1913 to try to re-regulate the Internet.” If we don’t learn from telecom history, we will be doomed to repeat it.

The following article by Harry Khachatrain contains more details on the technological complexities — I can’t say I followed it all, but key facts were easy to understand:

Everything You Need To Know About Why Net Neutrality Is A Terrible Idea

The topic of net neutrality is one of the hottest debated issues of the modern day, and for good reason. We all use the internet and thus have a natural tendency to weigh in on issues regarding its regulation.

The internet, however, is a complex hierarchical structure riddled with reams of vagaries. Without first understanding them, people shouldn’t attempt to propose legislation.

Unfortunately, from Congressmen to commentators to comedians, this is exactly what we’ve been seeing regarding net neutrality.

Khachatrain asks, “why does Google itself support Net Neutrality?”:

Google is a huge proponent of Net Neutrality. Their website is outfitted with an uppity “We Stand Together. Support a #FreeAndOpen Internet” slogan.

However, Google is privy to the fact that smaller companies, competitors, and start-ups bereft of the resources and capital available to build a global network infrastructure and peer with providers, must instead become customers of higher tier service providers to reach end users.

And what better way to stifle competition in the market, than have these smaller companies subject to a bevy of regulations you’re free of.

Enforcing “net neutrality” does the exact opposite of what its proponents claim. It results in an internet where a handful of large corporations have access to peering agreements with large transit providers (what some people refer to as “the fast lane”), and the rest are subject to far fewer options in terms of services, and even upon growing and gaining market share, will be denied the opportunity to shop around for different ISP plans that suit them best.

For even more! — here are a few more articles:

Goodbye Net Neutrality; Hello Competition

We should take our deregulation where we can get it.

Here is one key paragraph:

What was sold as economic fairness and a wonderful favor to consumers was actually a sop to industrial giants who were seeking untrammeled access to your wallet and an end to competitive threats to market power.

Under the heading “Neutrality was Deceptive,” he writes:

But when you look closely at the effects, the reality was exactly the opposite. Net neutrality closed down market competition by generally putting government and its corporate backers in charge of deciding who can and cannot play in the market. It erected barriers to entry for upstart firms while hugely subsidizing the largest and most well-heeled content providers.

So what are the costs to the rest of us? It meant no price reductions in internet service. It could mean the opposite. Your bills went up and there was very little competition. It also meant a slowing down in the pace of technological development due to the reduction in competition that followed the imposition of this rule. In other words, it was like all government regulation: most of the costs were unseen, and the benefits were concentrated in the hands of the ruling class.

Here is Maureen Collins also writing at The Federalist, where she also included some important tech-facts, as well as Internet regulatory history):

Why ‘Net Neutrality’ Is Nothing More Than Corporate Power Grab

Giving the federal government control of the Internet wouldn’t bring greater freedom—it would enable bureaucrats and lobbyists to run the show.

Recently, you may have heard the scary news that the Trump administration is trying to destroy the internet. Last week, tech companies like Twitter and Facebook had a “week of action” to promote “Network Neutrality,” an initiative of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which the new Trump-appointed commissioner Ajit Pai is threatening to roll back.

However, like many things these days, this supposed threat is fake news. The name “net neutrality” may sound appealing, commonsensical, or even modern—but the truth is that the FCC has been pushing this initiative for the past decade, despite several Constitutional challenges. When you strip down the internet jargon and flashy activist promotions, net neutrality is nothing more than a New Deal-era power grab. It’s outdated, unfair, and ultimately puts the government in charge of policing web content.

Here is Robert Tracinski writing at The Federalist:

The Hypocritical Dishonesty Of The Net Neutrality Campaign

Underneath Mozilla’s blatantly hypocritical posturing about ‘censorship’ and freedom of speech, net neutrality is really just about a money grab.

The Federal Communications Commission’s attempt to turn Internet service providers into regulated utilities, which the Trump administration has just reversed, was never about stopping them from controlling content. It’s actually about money. It’s about who pays for all of that bandwidth we’re using. To be more specific, it’s about trying to make certain unpopular companies (like Comcast) pay for it, so that other, more popular companies (like Netflix) don’t have to.

Two more items worth mentioning. First, the new Trump-era FCC chairman was seriously harassed and even had death threats.

Finally, Rush Limbaugh talked about net neutrality back in November of last year — here is a part of what he had to say in opposition to it:

The government does not mean cheaper. The government has never meant cheaper. The government doesn’t mean equal. The government doesn’t mean fair. It never has. What the government means, in this context, is reduced services and less competence. It is competition that makes prices lower. It’s competition that enables innovation, better services. And this is a classic example of liberals succeeding in making people believe that corporations and industry are the enemy of people, that they are out to harm people, that they’re out to financially screw people…

And the government is the great fixer, government is the tamer of these wild financial beasts who want to deprive you of your Netflix and your Hulu and whatever else you watch. It’s classic how they have succeeded in making people believe that only the government can fix problems and make things fair. When you look at anything the government has its hands in, it isn’t efficient, it isn’t cheap, and it doesn’t work!

Worldview Conference May 5th

Worldview has never been so important than it is today!  The contemporary culture is shaping the next generation’s understanding of faith far more than their faith is shaping their understanding of culture. The annual IFI Worldview Conference is a phenomenal opportunity to reverse that trend. This year we are featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet on Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

Hollywood stands as an eclectic, self-congratulatory private club, whose mainline members flaunt wealth and hedonism, pontificating re guns and violence and the #MeToo scandals, while simultaneously producing films overflowing with guns and violence and promiscuous and perverse sex.

That coastal and SoCal enclave, brimming with egos, yet, for the most part, devoid traditional and biblical values, produces movies full of anti-faith, anti-values messages and themes. Week after week films debut that gleefully plumb the depths of depravity, cheered on by jaded critics who only wake up mid-viewing if an envelope-pushing movie grabs their attention.

Hollywood and its Lefty members and supporters, deride film efforts produced by people of faith, expecting only failure and inferior art simply because the creators espouse a belief system that Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences members disdain and don’t understand.

Given that background of low expectations, the Erwin Brothers shocked Tinsel Town’s who’s who with their recent offering, I Can Only Imagine, after the song of the same name.

Jon and Andrew Erwin started their unlikely careers as sports camera men working for the likes of ESPN and Fox NFL. They started their own production company in 2002, producing music videos, garnering Music Video of the Year at the GMA Dove Awards for three years running.

Next the Erwins moved to documentaries before finally, in 2010, changing course to produce feature length films. Their second feature film, Moms’ Night Out, a comedic romp infused with faith, starring Patricia Heaton, Sean Astin, and Trace Adkins, earned a decent box office and tremendous DVD/Blu-Ray sales. Jon and Andrew’s third offering, Woodlawn, based on the true story of God’s love overcoming the racist climate of early 1970’s Alabama football, starring Sean Astin and Jon Voight, racked up over $14 million at the box office and another $9+ million in video sales.

With I Can Only Image, Jon and Andrew Erwin raked in $17 million, coming in a very respectable third in the opening weekend box office, competing with the new Lara Croft Tomb Raider blockbuster, the pro-gay teen movie, Love, Simon, and Disney’s faith-sanitized Wrinkle in Time (in its third week).

But unlike those other Hollywood offerings, the Erwins’ film only had a $7 million dollar production budget and was shown on at least 800 fewer screens (2,000 screens will be added on March 23). In addition, I Can Only Imagine scored an A+ from CinemaScore patrons.

Why did this modest budget, faith-filled film resonate?

To start with, the 2001 song, “I Can Only Imagine,” written and performed by Bart Millard with his band Mercy Me, touched millions and was a hit on, not only Christian charts, but crossed over to “the Billboard Adult Contemporary (where it peaked at No. 5)” and received multiple awards.

The movie employed good marketing efforts, both Christian and secular venues ran the trailer and the early buzz was palpable.

But the real proof was the movie itself.

Starring J. Michael Finley (who made his Broadway debut in Les Miserables in 2014) as Bart Millard, veteran actor Dennis Quaid as Bart’s abusive father, Arthur, all-star performer Trace Adkins (who also had a key comedic, if deadpan, role in Moms’ Night Out) as the craggy agent, Brickell, and film icon Cloris Leachman as Bart’s “Memaw,” I can Only Imagine grabs the viewer emotionally early on and never lets go.

The movie follows the tough as Texas dirt childhood of Bart Millard, and the part music and faith played in sustaining and healing him. We learn of Bart’s childhood and lifelong sweetheart, Shannon (played by Madeline Carroll), who reminds Bart that she’s praying for him through it all. There’s a smaller, but significant, part of the drama coach, Mrs. Fincher (played by Priscilla Shirer, of War Room) who discovers Bart’s beautiful voice and casts him in the lead (Curly) of their high school musical, Oklahoma.

Quaid plays Bart’s dad with a gritty realism that makes him easy to despise: young Millard is physically, emotionally and verbally abused. Forgiveness comes hard. How can any son forgive a son-of-a-gun (Arthur deserved the saltier permutation of the colloquialism) like Arthur Millard?

A father is supposed to love his son, his children. A father is supposed to encourage their great aspirations. A father is supposed to protect his wife and children.

But Arthur Millard, an aging man steeped in decades of disappointment, permeated with acerbic bitterness, does none of that.

In one gut-and-heart-wrenching scene, Arthur asks, “If God can forgive everyone else, why can’t he forgive me?”

Bart, wrapped in a well-deserved wall of angry protection, spits out, “God can forgive you. I can’t.”

Viewers are left wondering where the story will take them…will Bart forgive his father? Is that the key to breaking down all the other emotional walls in his life?

Along the way, the story captures the era and includes the critical parts of Amy Grant (played by Nicole DuPort) and Michael W. Smith (played by Jake B. Miller), and the soundtrack includes ELO’s Don’t Bring Me Down, and Keith Green’s, Oh Lord, You’re Beautiful, and more.

Families will be relieved to know that, though Dennis Quaid plays wife and child beater, Arthur Millard, to a “T,” the amazingly talented Erwin brothers elicit the sucker-punching emotion with a dearth of actual violence — thank God. The film is enough of a tearjerker, bringing the movie watchers to tears and sniffles by sheer creativity, powerful acting, and music.

I Can Only Imagine, like several other soon-to-debut faith-themed movies, was perfectly timed to open a mere two weeks before the pivotal Christian “holy day” marking the triumph of death over life, of blessing over cursing, and of hope over despair.

As my friend Elizabeth Johnston, aka “The Activist Mommy,” posted:

What an incredibly powerful story. The depth of pain and joy and forgiveness in this movie is sure to change thousands of people’s lives! Please, please, please load your car up with people and go see this incredible film this weekend!

Thank you so much to The Erwin Brothers for your tireless work on this project! You’ve got a winner here!

And thank you to Bart Millard of MercyMe Music for showing us all what it means to forgive like Jesus.

And the crux of the matter is forgiveness. Bart Millard learned the priceless lesson of real love and forgiveness.

Think of the words of the John:

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:7-8)

Add to that Paul’s admonition to the church at Corinth:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

Jon and Andrew Erwin, along with Producer Kevin Downs (who starred in Courageous and Moms’ Night Out) and Executive Producer Cindy Bonds, have done the near-miraculous: created a movie which moves audiences to laughter and tears and applause AND achieves box office success without insulting our faith and values. Indeed, I Can Only Imagine paints a dramatic picture of faith and forgiveness and reconciliation on the big screen.

Thank-you Jon and Andrew for this movie, a cinematic work of art which serves as a beacon of light in this dark, dark world! Here’s hoping you have long careers, honoring Truth and Life, using the big screen for the biggest message the world has ever known.

I have had two children; I was old enough, when I became pregnant, that it made sense to do the testing for Down syndrome. Back then, it was amniocentesis, performed after 15 weeks; now, chorionic villus sampling can provide a conclusive determination as early as nine weeks. I can say without hesitation that, tragic as it would have felt and ghastly as a second-trimester abortion would have been, I would have terminated those pregnancies had the testing come back positive. I would have grieved the loss and moved on.

That’s an excerpt from an op-ed penned by Ruth Marcus, editor for the Washington Post and Harvard Law School grad.

Been there, not done that.

My late wife Mary Hickey was a beautiful and wickedly smart woman. More important, she was the loving mother of my three children.

In 1988, we learned that we were to be blessed with our second child. Fifteen weeks into Mary’s pregnancy she was tested via the same amniocentesis ritual described by Ruth Marcus. Mary’s obstetrician was a woman who determined there was a 99.9% surety that our child would be a Down Syndrome baby.  Mary responded, “So what?”

The doctor snorted, ” Well, I would abort it ASAP.”

Mary replied, “Well, you’re fired.”

Mary also called her a name I won’t repeat and shopped for a physician who would first, do no harm.

Our son was born, and he is a big healthy, happy, strapping broth of a man, who was captain of his high school football team and is now a stationary engineer.

Science.  Think about it.

I am an English teacher, and Mary was an art teacher. Mary died in 1998 and ordered me to send all three children to Catholic schools. I did. Sadly, they were raised by me and without this smart and loving woman.

I can be as much a monster as the worst of people. My literary studies taught me that a monster is a warning/a portent. The word comes from the Latin monere: to warn. 

The Golem, Grendel, and Irish Banshee all came from human imagination. Science gave us nastier monsters.  Frankenstein, Mr. Hyde and designer babies come from science, or man’s attempt to usurp God.

We all have monsters within us, but those of us who have metaphysical connections to eternal truths–that is the  belief in God–fear Him who created us out of love more than the monsters we create out of our fears, insecurities or vices.

The Greeks created a monstrum horrendum in the character of the first feminist Medea. Medea slaughtered her sons to show the gods that no man could hurt her “when Jason deserted Medea for the daughter of King Creon of Corinth; in revenge, Medea murdered Creon, his daughter, and her own two sons by Jason and took refuge with King Aegeus of Athens, having escaped from Corinth in a cart drawn by dragons sent by her grandfather Helios.”  She then, like Ruth Marcus, moved on.

She could have it all and she married King Aegeus who dumped her when she tried to poison his son Theseus. Kill your kids, why not kill other people’s kids. That is the mad genius of abortion supporters, ” I would have grieved the loss and moved on.” Monstrous.

Ruth Marcus offers sober and clinical reasons for aborting a Down Syndrome child that all add up to selfishness:

I’m going to be blunt here: That was not the child I wanted. That was not the choice I would have made. You can call me selfish, or worse, but I am in good company. The evidence is clear that most women confronted with the same unhappy alternative would make the same decision.

I am going to be blunt here, an Austrian paper-hanger was in good company from 1933-1945.  Monstrous.

There are certainly times when we Christian conservatives feel that all is lost, that the Left with its irrationality is in control and that reasonableness has disappeared.  It seems that the entire country is oblivious to the fact that the emperor has no clothes.  However, let us remember two things:

First, God is sovereign and He will ultimately set things straight.

Second, lies and nonsense have a limited life-expectancy.  As Lincoln said, “you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”  Meaning that the Left’s house of cards can only sustain itself so long.  It is very shaky in a variety of ways, and I would like to point out just one way their irrationality will come back to haunt them.

All across the nation over the last few months we have seen violence erupt against conservative speakers, especially on college campuses.  We are being told that “hurtful” words are equivalent to physical violence; therefore, it is appropriate to meet those words with actual violence.  Until now, that argument has received little of the scorn it deserves.  Few in the media have said anything to rebut it.  Such thinking is not only illogical, it is dangerous.

But, since those in the media, who pride themselves for their intelligence and compassion, have turned a blind eye to this destructive nonsense, let’s consider how it would work out if applied elsewhere.

Let’s take for example a case where a man has physically assaulted his girl friend.  If, as the Left declares, certain words are equivalent to physical violence, then we are REQUIRED to no longer automatically assume the guilt of the man.  Even if he did hit her, and even if there are hospital photographs of her injuries, and it is irrefutable that he did it, if she spoke certain “hurtful” words to him, she “had it coming” according to the Left’s own reasoning!  After all, we are not permitted to acknowledge ANY difference between the genders, and I thought it is only we conservatives who hold on to the outdated, sexist dictum that a man should never hit a woman. . . .  (That, by-the-way, is another “Leftism” that collapses under close examination).

Do we not see where the irrationality of the Left is leading us?  This is merely one of many ways the thinking of the Left self-destructs.

So, If God is gracious, and just holds off the total collapse of the nation for awhile, the Left’s nonsense will be exposed for what it is: nonsense.

Maybe you once thought that the left wanted tolerance and diversity, but in reality, tolerance and diversity have never been the goals of the left, especially the radical left. Instead, it wants to suppress and silence opposing views, and the further left you go, the more extreme the intolerance.

For those who have still not come to grips with this, let these recent examples jar you.

It is bad enough that states have been passing legislation banning counseling for minors struggling with same-sex attraction, even if they have their parents’ backing. But now, there are reports that some states are considering banning such counseling for people of any age. (I was informed of this last week by a Christian counselor in California.)

In other words, it could be illegal for a 30-year-old man with unwanted same-sex attractions to go for professional counseling that focuses on helping him deal with and even overcome these attractions. This is a monstrous violation of individual freedom, not to mention a serious misrepresentation of scientific data, as if all “conversion therapy” was harmful.

Taking things one step farther, “A church in Michigan has come under intense attack this month [meaning, February] after posting on Facebook that it was holding a workshop at the church for girls who are struggling with essentially LGBT thoughts.”

So, not even a church is allowed to help its young people who struggle with unwanted same-sex thoughts. I guess freedom of religion and, even more fundamentally, freedom of self-determination only goes so far. How dare a church do such a thing!

The pastor Jeremy Schossau, stated that, “‘It is hard to believe how much vile filth has been sent our way,’ adding that many of the emails contained gay pornography. ‘We’re talking 10,000 emails and posts and messages and phone calls. It’s just been virtually nonstop.’”

Ah, the sweet, gentle voice of tolerance and diversity!

On a very different front, Pamela Geller explained to Milo Yiannopoulos that, “Google has scrubbed all internet searches . . . of anything critical of jihad and Sharia. So, if you Google jihad and you Google Sharia and you Google Islam, you’re going to get Islamic apologetics, you’re going to get ‘religion of peace.’ Whereas my site used to come up top, page one for jihad and Sharia or Islam, or JihadWatch did, you can’t find it now. They scrubbed 40,000 Geller posts of Google.”

She continued, “You know what? It’s Stalinesque.”

Geller wasn’t exaggerating, and her example is just one of many.

But all you have to do is label something as “hate speech” these days, and you can get it removed from social media in a hurry.

A friend of mine had his Facebook page shut down for sharing Bible verses about homosexual practice – I mean verses without commentary.

Another friend had his Facebook page shut down for posting medical data about the health risks associated with homosexual practice.

These are just two examples out of many more, where colleagues have been warned, if not censured and then censored.

Even Joe Rogan, hardly a conservative activist, noted how “squirrely” things have become with “hate speech” labelling on social media. (The context of his comment was his interview with Douglas Murray, himself anything but a conservative activist, noting how Murray’s discussion with atheist Sam Harris was somehow labelled hate speech, thereby in violation of Twitter’s community guidelines.”)

Over at Harvard University, a Christian club has been penalized for daring to live by its biblically-based code for leaders. As reported by Todd Starnes, “A well-respected Christian student organization at Harvard University has been placed on probation after they allegedly forced a bisexual woman to resign from a leadership position for dating a woman.

“The Crimson reports that Harvard College Faith and Action was put on ‘administrative probation’ for a year. The group is largest Christian fellowship on campus.”

So, a Christian club cannot require its leaders (not its members) to live by Christian standards, which begs the question, Could the leader of a campus Islamic club be a professing Christian? Or could the leader of a campus PETA club be a meat-eater? Or could the leader of the campus atheist club be an Orthodox Jew?

By why ask logical questions? The left wants to enforce its intolerant groupthink on everyone else. Leftist tolerance is a myth.

Just consider the recent debate on gun control in the aftermath of the tragic shooting in Parkland, Florida. Regardless of which side of the debate you’re on, was any tolerance shown to Dana Loesch (representing the NRA) at a CNN-sponsored town hall? Not only was she called a murderer and bad mother, but Jake Tapper actually asked her if she and her husband had security to escort them out of the building.

Is it stretching things to imagine that there could have been physical violence against Loesch? We’ve already seen how violent the left can get at places like Berkeley, where “punch a Nazi” becomes the rallying cry.

This doesn’t mean that we respond with violence and anger. God forbid.

But it does mean that we start speaking up more loudly, clearly, fearlessly, and persistently. And in the appropriate ways, as with the new “Internet Freedom Watch” initiative announced by the NRB (National Religious Broadcasters), we fight back.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org

**CAUTION: Not for younger readers**

Leave it to Chicago Tribune lifestyle expert Heidi Stevens to come up with another dumb idea. In an essay titled “Who do we become if we give teachers guns?,” in which she ruminates on the proposal to allow teachers to volunteer to be trained to use a gun in those rare instances when a mass killer starts killing school children, Stevens offers this deep thought:

Asking teachers to die for our children is very different from asking teachers to kill for them.

When did parents or anyone else ask teachers to die for our children? And to my knowledge, no one has proposed even asking teachers to carry and be trained to use guns—or as Stevens puts it, “to kill” for our children. She obviously phrases it like this to imply that defensively killing someone who is attempting to murder innocents is no different from murder. Killing is killing in the Upside Down in which Leftists live and move and have their being.

Here’s a more accurate description of what some have proposed: Knowing that there are many teachers who are already licensed and trained gun owners, some have proposed asking teachers if they would like to carry and be trained to use guns at school.

Stevens’ fatuous statement implies that asking teachers to die for our children is acceptable but asking if they are willing to kill a murderer to protect our defenseless children is beyond the pale.

Stevens quotes Al Vernacchio, a Pennsylvania teacher whose “writings” she follows:

I would rather throw my body in front of one of my students than raise a gun against an assailant. I may lose my life, but I will have preserved my humanity.

Vernacchio signals his virtue by claiming that “preserving” his “humanity” demands he use less effective ways of protecting his defenseless students from a murderer than more effective ways. Somehow in his twisted world—and it is twisted—his humanity is preserved by not killing a murderer, thereby making it more likely his students will be killed.

I wrote about the troubling Al Vernacchio in 2011. He’s a 54-year-old homosexual “sex scholar” and former Catholic who is “married” to a man and teaches English and human sexuality at a private Quaker school in Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, where he promotes Leftist views of sexuality to teens. Of course, Leftist Stevens would follow Vernacchio.

A 2011 New York Times article on sex education features Vernacchio and shares the topics he covers in his class on sexuality for teens. Vernacchio encourages kids to share and discuss colloquial metaphors relating to sex and explains their meanings. He discusses penis sizes, giving and receiving oral sex, and shaving pubic hair. He shows a “research video… of a woman ejaculating… and a couple of dozen up-close photographs of vulvas and penises.” Vernacchio has handed out worksheets “with the five senses printed along the top and asked the students to try and list sexual activities that optimized each. (There were examples to prod their thinking: under hearing, for instance, was ‘listening to your partner read an erotic story.’)” Vernacchio, who says he doesn’t “necessarily see the decision to become sexually active when you’re 17 as an unhealthy one,” also “rarely misses a chance to ask his students to examine gender bias in their sexual attitudes or behavior.”

This is the kind of person who Stevens looks to for insight.

Stevens urges Americans to carefully consider “what we sacrifice when we fill our classrooms with guns. What we sacrifice when we fail to examine, thoroughly and honestly, why this country has one of the highest rates of death by firearm in the developed world, why mass shootings have broken out in churches and movie theaters, college campuses and a nightclub, an outdoor concert and, again and again, schools.”

Stevens’ hyperbolic claim that allowing  gun-owning teachers to choose to carry at school constitutes “filling our classrooms with guns” is demagogic nonsense. Even having one armed teacher in every other classroom would not constitute “filling our classrooms with guns.”

Since this country has always had a significant number of armed citizens, Stevens is wise in asking why we are now seeing such high rates of firearm deaths and mass shootings at churches, theaters, college campuses, schools, and music venues. What’s changed over the past thirty or so years?

Could it be the breakdown or rejection of the nuclear family?

Could it be exposure to violence in our video games, television shows, and movies?

Could it be the loss of small community schools and the concomitant growth of large schools that breed social hierarchies and are inhospitable places for those who are different?

Could it be the rejection of transcendent meaning and objective truth by a post-modern culture that reveres subjectivism, relativism, nihilism, Gnosticism, and even solipsism?

Could it be the abandonment of faith in Jesus Christ?

Stevens characterizes the proposal to allow trained, gun-owning teachers as an admission of “defeat in the fight to keep guns away from our children and decide, instead, to forever link ‘school’ with ‘killing ground.’”:

Who do we become when we arm our teachers? We become a nation that no longer trusts our collective humanity to triumph over evil. We commit to being so enamored of guns, so inured to bloodshed, so unwilling to imagine a better way, that we’d weaponize our classrooms.

Nice platitudinous rhetoric that ignores reality. Because of doctrinaire Leftists, we can no longer collectively agree on something as obvious as it’s inhumane to force women to share private spaces with men.

Moreover, one way to triumph over evil is to stop it dead in its tracks, which guns do better than throwing one’s body over the body of one student and better than appealing to some vague notion of “collective humanity.”

How grotesque, dishonest, and—dare I say—inhumane of Stevens to suggest that arming willing, trained teachers against people with murderous intent against defenseless children constitutes being “enamored of guns” or “inured to bloodshed.”

Does the presence of armed security at parades, the Olympics, the Capitol, and the White House mean Americans are enamored of guns or are inured to bloodshed?

Acknowledging the reality in which we live is not the same as being inured to bloodshed. Wanting to provide willing teachers a better means than their own bodies for defending children against armed assailants is not equivalent to being enamored of guns.

Stevens closes by quoting a teen who made this statement at CNN’s anti-gun advocacy spectacle that was promoted as a townhall meeting: “If a kid throws a rock at another kid in a sandbox, you don’t give every other kid a rock.”

So much wrong with that analogy, so little time.

Let’s start with the obvious: rocks aren’t guns. Generally, rocks don’t kill.

Second, any adult present when a little child begins to throw rocks could physically stop the child because adults are more powerful than small children. In other words, the physical strength of adults provides a superior defense against the rock-throwing assault of a little child.

Third, let’s imagine a sandbox full of very young children who for some reason can’t escape. A young bully approaches and starts hurling rocks that have the potential to grievously harm or kill the young children. Also present is an adult, but she is confined to a wheel chair with no ability to physically stop the rock-thrower. The rock-thrower is pelting the little ones. They’re screaming and crying. Some are unconscious, some are bleeding. The adult now notices a pile of rocks beside her on the ground. Should she simply sit there, or should she use the rocks to try to stop the carnage? Which of these terrible choices poses a greater threat to her humanity: meeting force with commensurate force, or letting the little ones be mowed down?

Fourth, Nikolas Kruz is not a little child. He is a young adult.

Generally, it’s not wise to look to teenagers for wisdom. They have limited life experience. For the most part, they aren’t particularly well-read. If they’re in public schools, they’re likely not particularly well-taught. The impulse-control part of teenage brains is not fully developed. And they tend to be rebellious. It’s especially unwise to look to traumatized, grieving teens for wisdom or answers to complex social problems.

A commenter on IFI’s Facebook page asserted that arming teachers turns a non-violent place into a place of violence. No, it doesn’t. Killers turn non-violent places into places of violence. Arming teachers is one proposal for preserving schools as non-violent places.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Virtue-Signalling-from-Leftists-on-Arming-Teachers_01.mp3

RESCHEDULED: IFI Worldview Conference May 5th

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

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

Click HERE to learn more or to register!