Mississippi recently hosted its largest pro-life walk yet. 

Three-hundred and fifty eight registered walkers and 52 partner churches raised over $70,000 for The Center for Pregnancy Choices Metro Area at their first annual LifeWalk. This exceeded their goal by over $20,000. 

Due to generous local business partners underwriting the event, 100 percent of LifeWalk proceeds will go to serving the women of Hinds, Rankin, and Madison counties facing unplanned pregnancies. 

The CPC Metro Area offers free and confidential medical-quality pregnancy tests, high-quality sonograms, options counseling, literature, parenting classes, referrals to community services, infant supplies, and prenatal vitamins. They are funded solely from the generosity of local Mississippians, their businesses, and their churches. 

The two clinics in North Jackson and Fondren are staffed with registered nurses and trained decision specialists. Their medical capabilities are made possible by their medical director, two volunteer radiologists, and a pharmacy that provides prenatal vitamins. 

Truly, the Jackson area community makes their mission possible. 

Each of the 52 participating churches had a Walk Ambassador who assembled their own walk teams. Each walker raised their own sponsorship in their respective spheres of influence and set personal goals accordingly. Highland Colony Baptist Church stands out as a church that went above and beyond, raising the most funds of any participating church. Nine families raised $1,000 or more for the clinics, while 22 others raised $500 plus by their own accord. First Baptist Church in Raymond formed the largest team, with 32 walkers. A young woman from Clinton raised over $2,700 as an individual. Funds poured in from Madison, Ridgeland, Jackson, Flowood, Brandon, Pearl, Terry, Florence, Raymond, Clinton, Star, and Pelahatchie.

It is abundantly clear—Mississippi is a pro-life state. We are ready to put our money where our mouth is. We are literally walking the walk we talk. Following Gov. Phil Bryant signing our Heatbeat Bill this session, recently halted by a court order, we see that Mississippians will not wait for courts to catch up with our progress. 

Neither the state nor federal government fill the gap for the women of Mississippi quite like The CPC Metro Area does. 

Voluntary associations and local philanthropy show us that private institutions and individuals support women in crisis. 

Unplanned, released in a limited number of theaters across the nation in March, tells the story of Abby Johnson’s conversion from a Planned Parenthood Clinic Director to a pro-life activist.

The movie came in 4th place in box office sales over opening weekend, doubling expected ticket sales, and earning over $6 million three days after its release. This unexpected success is accompanied by controversy and apparent censorship of an impactful Christian and pro-life story.

This is exactly why we should be paying attention.

Since its release, the movie has dealt with extensive censorship issues on social media. Twitter briefly suspended the movie’s account. Though it was restored, due to public outcry, this act of censorship leaves us with questions. Was it an executive decision, made by Twitter? Was it caused by a reaction from complaints by pro-choice users? Twitter claims that they suspended the account because it was linked to an account that violated the website’s rules. Is this vague claim true? The movie’s account also suffered a quick and drastic decrease in followers, which is also entirely unexplained.

It appears as if discussion and promotion of the movie is being intentionally suppressed by mainstream media. Furthermore, it appears as if the nature of this censorship is political.

Similarly, the R rating, given by the Motion Picture Association of America, was also politically controversial. Unplanned was likely the first Christian movie, produced by Pure Flix, to receive an R rating. It did not contain nudity, sexuality, or foul language. Did the movie deserve the rating that it received, or could it have been another attempt at censorship of conservative Christian voices by mainstream media?

Candidly, the movie graphically detailed surgical abortions, a chemical abortion, and the aftermath of a botched abortion. These scenes portrayed the ugly reality and the haunting violence of abortion. The R rating could serve as warning for parents who may not want their children to witness such images, or post-abortive women who may be disturbed by such images.

However, it is reasonable to ask why a 13-year-old girl is legally permitted to obtain an abortion without parental consent (depending on the state) but not permitted to watch a movie about abortion? Deserving or not, the R rating successfully reduced the number of teenagers that a pro-life message could reach. It also prevented advertisement of the film on most major cable networks.

The various censorship efforts by mainstream media demonstrate why we need to pay attention to discussion surrounding the movie and why we need to watch the film for ourselves.

Unplanned changes the stigmas and the generalizations typically attached to Christian-made movies. Often, Christian films, even high grossing movies such as Gods not Dead, written by the same screenwriters as Unplanned, are painfully predictable, naïve, and one-sided. Christian-made movies often tend to self-righteously “candy-coat” issues and remain blissfully ignorant to ugly realities – as if they are scared to touch anything that may actually represent the gospel of a savior that ate with tax collectors or prostitutes. It is as if they are afraid to acknowledge our call to live in the world.

Unplanned changes these stigmas in a remarkable manner. The power of storytelling is immeasurable. Telling a story truthfully is an act of bravery. Abby Johnson tells her story without reservation and it is a difficult story to hear. It is not a story that is blind to ugly realities. The abortion scenes are heart-wrenching and she highlights well the paralyzing hopelessness that women experience when facing a crisis pregnancy.

It is not a one-sided story. Viewers of the film will witness difficult truths, such as the fact that women who work for abortion clinics are rarely ill-intentioned. They truly believe that they are serving and helping other women.. They are not malicious adherents to the manipulative nature of the Planned Parenthood corporation and they do not revel in the death of an unborn baby. I believe they are simply misguided, as Abby Johnson tells us that she was for many years. Likewise, pro-lifers do not always practice love, nor do they always truly want to help women in crisis. Instead, they scream slurs and label women “baby-murders.” They hold up signs of aborted fetuses and utilize scare tactics. Like most things in life, there is more gray than black and white.

This point was made clearly in the distinction made between 40 Days for Life, a non-profit organization dedicated to quietly praying outside of abortion clinics and offering women the hope of another option, and the people dressed as grim reapers who harassed women as they walked into the clinic. The film does not naively believe that the divide between the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate is consistently black and white.

Another case often brought against Christian-themed films is their tendency to preach to the choir. Ideally, Unplanned will open thousands of eyes and reach just as many hearts. Ideally, it will create dynamic and edifying conversations between the two sides of the pro-life vs. pro-choice fence. I believe that it has the potential to accomplish all of this and more – especially because of its timely release. The current political atmosphere surrounding the issue of abortion is volatile. Heartbeat bills are being passed in numerous states, as well as born alive acts and late-term abortion laws.

Yet, what if the film only reaches conservative Christians? Is it then a waste of money? Would it then be a waste of a powerful story, told bravely? This is not the case. In my experience, conservative Christians may know what abortion is, the basic definition of terminating a pregnancy, and they may vote for politicians who uphold the sanctity of life, but they may not know what abortion means.

Most conservatives have not have witnessed the violence of abortion. They may not know that abortion is a violation of women’s rights. They may not know how difficult abortion is, both physically and emotionally. Conservatives may not understand the cold and manipulative nature of the abortion industry. They may not have heard the heartbeat of an unborn child. Conservatives may not have faced  the reality of an unplanned pregnancy. They may not know that fetal parts are removed from abortion clinics in industrial-sized, blue barrels. Conservatives may not have witnessed a mother mourning a child she has never even met. There are so many people who do not know what abortion means. Just because abortion is a controversial and contentious issue does not indicate that the majority of people are well-informed, including conservative Christians.

Go and watch Unplanned. Go and appreciate the power of storytelling and the honesty of one Christian film. Go and learn what abortion really means. Go and support liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Officials at the University of Iowa have recently challenged a small group of Christians, students of the university, for supposedly threatening the university’s human rights policy.

The group, called Business Leaders in Christ, were accused of violating university policy by not allowing a gay student to serve as vice president of their group. Members of the group stated that allowing a gay student to serve as vice president of their group would conflict with their core beliefs – the belief that marriage is rightfully intended for one man and one woman. 

The court ruled in favor of Business Leaders in Christ and determined that the University of Iowa could not strip them of their rights.

This case demonstrated the sad reality of religious discrimination in America and specifically, religious discrimination on college campuses. Few of us have heard or seen any media coverage of this case. It brings to light the fact that religious discrimination, in America and on college campuses, extends far past what our mainstream media chooses to report.

The University of Iowa attempted to “de-recognize” a Christian group of students for pledging allegiance to their own faith and upholding their own ideals. The violation of rights and targeted discrimination in this act were significant. Yet coverage of the incident has been sparse.

We live in an age in which we worship at an altar of tolerance but the media remains markedly deaf to a case that involved acute intolerance and discrimination based upon one’s religious beliefs. Why? It is vital that we ponder the answer to this question.

Had this been a case of discrimination involving people and events serving the purposes of the left more adequately, would our newsfeed have provided us with more details? Had the rights of an openly Christian group not been upheld in a court of law, would we have heard more?

The lack of media coverage and the hypocritical nature of the discrimination are alarming. The officials who de-recognized the group claimed that they did so based the university’s human rights policy. Yet, where were the rights of the members of Business Leaders in Christ? Where were their natural rights to choose a leader who upheld the core tenants of their common faith?

Even as school officials claimed that the Christian group was practicing intolerance, the university simultaneously infringed on religious freedom and practiced their own brand of intolerance.

The implications of this incident are far-reaching. How we choose a college could be one implication. The way Christians are perceived by the world is yet another.

I am fortunate enough to pursue my chosen field of study at a Christian university. It is a university where I am free to express my faith in all areas of my life. Yet, one should not have to attend a Christian school, as a Christian, to obtain the rights of religious expression. The process of choosing a college should be largely based on how well a student thinks a particularly university can prepare a prospective student for entry into his or her chosen profession.

If the “everything is political” era now extends to college, however, it may become necessary for a Christian student to consider the factor of freedom of speech and religious expression when choosing a school.

The issue of religious discrimination on college campuses, safeguarded by the media’s neglect, seem to be deliberate and systematic. It is slowly teaching the world to be distrustful of Christian expression of faith. It consistently and quietly encourages and magnifies harmful stigmas and generalizations attached to Christianity.

For instance, during what little media coverage there was of this issue, reporters never mentioned if the gay student was denied participation in the group altogether or if the student was merely denied a leadership role.

The recent Iowa court case is just one example of countless others that highlight how Christians are discriminated against on college campuses. The examples are big and small – from paper grading scandals to Christian student group expulsion.

It is an emerging crisis of a violation of our rights as Americans and it is a crisis largely ignored by mainstream media.

“Would you buy a car without test-driving it?”

So goes the degrading adage warning couples to cohabitate before marriage. Besides insinuating that a wife might want to divorce her husband because he often misses the laundry hamper and occasionally snores, cohabitating just to “test out” marriage is a bad idea.

With recent statistical results from Institute for Family Studies, we can see this isn’t just opinion. The disadvantages to living together before marriage are clear. And this impacts not just the individual or couple, but all taxpayers.

Despite overwhelming evidence that cohabitation leads to statistically significant disparities in levels of commitment, instances of infidelity and conflict, satisfaction, and stability, the majority of American adults believe that cohabitation is a good idea.  

In fact, 65 percent of American adults agree that dating couples ought to move in together before marriage. More specifically, 76 percent of millennials are very likely to endorse the move-in compared to 36 percent of the elder generation. While trends show that you’re more likely to support cohabitation if you’re non-religious or liberal in ideology, Christians and conservatives are still in support of it in startling numbers. Liberals are in favor by 86 percent compared to the still high 37 percent of conservatives. Self-professing Christians have the lowest approval rating of cohabitation, but at the alarming, and rather surprising, rate of 40 percent.

We culturally accept that “serious” couples will move in together as a final test of compatibility or as a grand gesture of commitment. Or was that just every romantic comedy I’ve ever seen? In fact, research shows that the most common reason for sharing a home is actually just spending more time together.

Couples should second-guess their decisions to become roommates according to IFS’s findings. Studies controlled for education, relationship duration, and age found that cohabitating couples had lower levels of commitment, higher likelihood of infidelity and conflict, and an increased likelihood of the relationship ending. These results pale in comparison to married individuals reporting greater satisfaction with their overall relationships. They self-describe as “very happy” more often compared to live-in couples. Married couples are much more likely to report themselves in the top groups for satisfaction, commitment, and stability.

The effects of poorer relationships don’t just affect the couples involved. They also greatly stunt the healthy development of involved children. According to the Census Bureau, three million children live with unmarried parents in America. By age twelve, 40 percent of children will live in a cohabitating household, usually with a mother and her live-in boyfriend. Four out of 10 children born in the United States are born to unmarried women with the majority (58 percent) born to women living with the child’s father.

Does this imply that all unmarried parents are bad parents?

No, absolutely not. Nearly every parent wants what’s best for their child and would move mountains to get them the best of everything they can. That’s exactly why these findings are so critical to express to Americans, especially in our state of Mississippi, where unwed birth rates are the highest in the nation.

Here are the factual risks for children in unmarried households:

• Single mother families are about five times as likely to experience poverty as married-parent families.
• In 2015, 7.5 percent of married-couple families were in poverty, compared to 36.5 percent of single mother families.
• Boys raised in single-parent households are more than twice as likely to be incarcerated, compared with boys raised in an intact, married home, again controlling for differences in parental income, education, race, and ethnicity.

The evidence is clear. Married couples are statistically more content and actualized in their relationships than unmarried couples sharing a home. Once couples bring children into the mix, disparities between married and unmarried couples grow and affect our children more often and with more magnitude.

And this impacts everybody, as taxpayers will be footing the bill for the various welfare programs that support those families in poverty. And despite the best of intentions to help citizens like single mothers, we know, based on years of evidence and analysis, that such programs don’t act as a trampoline for escaping poverty. No, welfare programs actually work as snare nets, trapping single mothers into a life of dependence that discourages working and marriage through perverse incentives and roadblocks from federal mandates.

To avoid such unintended consequences, the “success sequence” remains a good public policy prescription for young people. Graduate from high school. Get a Job. Get married. Have children. Do it in that order, if at all possible.

This column appeared in the Madison County Journal on March 21, 2019. 

The Mississippi Center for Public Policy commends Governor Phil Bryant for capping off a lifetime of pro-life public service by signing the Fetal Heartbeat bill today.

The “Heartbeat bill” allows abortion until the point at which a baby’s heartbeat is detected – about the middle of the first trimester.

“A majority (58 percent) of Mississippi voters believe abortion should only be permitted to save the life of the mother. Eighty-four percent of voters believe abortion should be limited after the first three months of pregnancy,” said Dr. Jameson Taylor, vice president for policy at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. “This polling was done well before lawmakers in New York radicalized the abortion debate by making abortion available to a woman on demand any time during her entire pregnancy. Only 8 percent of Mississippi voters support such a policy.”

“The Heartbeat bill is popular because everyone knows a heartbeat is a sign of life,” continued Dr. Taylor. “Intellectual and scientific honesty demands a reconsideration of Roe, a 50-year-old decision based on old science. 3-D and 4-D ultrasounds are showing women that their unborn child is alive. At six weeks, the child has a beating heart. Soon after, it can sense light, move, hear and taste. Whatever you want to call it, this living thing has the ‘form’ of a human person, as the Supreme Court recognized in the Gonzales decision.” Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) upheld a partial-birth abortion ban, even in cases of pre-viability.

The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood) reports that “the risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy.” The risk of the mother dying as a result of an abortion increases more than 2,100 percent between 8-weeks and 18-weeks of pregnancy. Maternal mortality increases by 38 percent with every week after 8-weeks gestation.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the states have “legitimate interests from the outset of pregnancy in protecting the health of women” (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 847 (1992)). Further, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the states have an “important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life,” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 162 (1973), and specifically that “the State has an interest in protecting the life of the unborn” Casey (1992).

See statewide polling results here.

A new report outlines the continued generosity of Mississippians.

While many complain that Mississippi is usually first on the bad lists and last on the good lists, Mississippians have always been recognized for their generosity. Another report confirms this.

The Fraser Institute’s Generosity Index measures charitable donations as recorded on personal income tax returns in Canada and the United States.

Because the Fraser Institute  is based in Canada, this report tracks donations from Canada’s 10 provinces and three territories, as well as the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The data is from the 2016 tax year.

The repot calculates the percentage of tax filers donating to charity, the percentage of aggregate income donated to charity, and the average annual charitable donation.

Mississippians gave 1.67 percent of their income to charity, which was good enough for 10th among the 64 states and provinces. Utah was first at 3.18 percent, followed by Georgia (2.31), Arkansas (2.07), Alabama (1.86), and Idaho (1.78).

The average annual charitable donation was $7,135, which was good enough for 13th. Wyoming was first with $12,991, followed by Arkansas ($10,935), Utah ($10,165), South Dakota ($10,020), and Tennessee ($8,644).

The report also showcased the noticeable differences between giving in the United States and Canada. The 13 Canadian provinces and territories took 13 of the bottom 14 spots when it came to percentage of aggregate income donated to charity. West Virginia’s 0.74 percent was slightly below Manitoba’s 0.76 percent.

But on average annual donation, the Canadian provinces and territories took the bottom 14 places.

In 1925, a group of mothers came together, committed to commemorating their sons who had tragically been lost in the blood bath that was World War I. To this end, they organized the community, fundraised, and erected the “Peace Cross” in Bladensburg, Maryland with the assistance of the, non-religious, American Legion.

Today, nearly 95 years later, some are claiming that this cross cannot remain on public land, as it represents an establishment of religion by the state. On February 27, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of The American Legion v. The American Humanist Association. The Court will soon release its important decision, which may set a precedent for the future existence of memorials around the United States.

It is worth noting that the land and statue were initially owned and cared for by the American Legion, before being taken over by the state. Since 1961, the state of Maryland has cared for the statue and land. Thus, the interpretation of the Establishment Clause pushed forward by the American Humanist Association is ahistorical and fails to account for the precedent of Supreme Court cases, which have previously granted the continued existence of similar memorials. This includes Thomas Van Orden v. Rick Perry. First, the state did not originally erect the memorial, and second, the intention of the memorializers was to put up a symbol of peace, in the way they best knew, and so they turned to the cross.

The American conception of the First Amendment does not necessitate societal freedom from religion, but rather freedom of religion. What makes America unique is that, unlike many European societies, the United States has consistently reestablished not only the freedom to private conscience, but the freedom of public expression of one’s faith.

In this guarantee, our Constitution ensures that the American people are allowed to publicly display their religious beliefs. The mothers of Bladensburg and the American Legion practiced this public expression in their establishment of this monument to the 49 fallen soldiers. And in entrusting this monument to the state, did not intend for the state to make a public establishment of the Christian religion, but rather intended for the enduring memorialization of America’s involvement in World War I, and the citizens that it lost in that war.

The implications of this case are significant, and will have a wide ranging impact on the state of memorialization and religious expression in the United States.

Where will the line will be drawn in regards to monuments and memorials if the Supreme Court takes the side of the Humanist Association? If one takes a walk through Arlington National Cemetery, a number of monuments will be seen that bear the shape of crosses, and the Star of David. All around the country there are crosses that adorn battlefields and town squares. Will all these be torn down?

Far from state establishment of religion, these markers commemorate those who have given their lives for this country, citizens who gave all in defense of the rights and liberties every American should retain.

How confused is a citizenry that  insists the memorials of yesterday must be torn from the ground and uprooted?

If nothing else, we ought to respect the dead, and especially those who served the nation in combat and died in battle, enough to commemorate them in the way chosen by the families of the fallen. That is a fundamental American liberty, the right of religious freedom, and it is enshrined in our Constitution. Let’s hope the U.S. Supreme Court does not let The American Humanist Association put that asunder.

The United States Senate blocked the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on Monday. All but three Senate Democrats voted against the measure, preventing its passage with 53 in favor and 44 opposed. The Act needed 60 votes to proceed.

The bill would have punished doctors who failed to provide medical care to infants accidently born alive in failed abortion attempts. Late term abortions are committed in at least 7 states across America. Recently, New York became one of the most radical pro-abortion states in the US.

Upon learning of this legislation, many wonder what is so controversial about protecting the lives of babies born alive in a medical setting.

Senate Democrats and the abortion lobby contend that the Act is simply a ploy to shame women seeking third trimester abortions. President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Leana Wen, said in her statement, “This legislation is based on lies and a misinformation campaign, aimed at shaming women and criminalizing doctors for a practice that doesn’t exist in medicine or reality.”

For people like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen, surviving failed abortion attempts is a reality. In Melissa’s case, she was left to die by medical staff and only spared because of the actions of kind NICU nurses. Recently, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam advocated for babies accidently born alive to be “kept comfortable” while they await their death. To be clear, babies left to die after failed abortions die of starvation, cold body temperatures, and oxygen deprivation.

Doctors who violate the Hippocratic Oath by not caring for born alive babies must be held accountable. As the left argues that infanticide is already illegal, they seem to be confusing themselves on whether or not leaving babies to die is infanticide or not. Bill author Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) argues that we need to make the penalty for this circumstance that doesoccur in reality abundantly clear for the medical community.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) called the proposed legislation “clearly anti-doctor, anti-woman and anti-family.” If outlining the punishment for neglecting infants born alive is anti-doctor, anti-woman, and anti-family, America should buckle its bootstraps in preparation for more horrific and backwards abortion legislation.

The truth is, many on the left do not value any unwanted human being if it can be called reproductive rights and gleaned for political points. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) exposes their actual thought process for blocking the act: “…Women, in consultation with their families and doctors, are in the best position to determine their best course of care.” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D- NH) claimed the legislation “would interfere with the doctor–patient relationship and impose new obstacles to a woman’s constitutionally protected right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health.”

Their statements have pointed out that they actually do approve of post-birth infanticide if it is “neatly” decided between a woman and her doctor.

Dressing up infanticide with political buzzwords and phrases doesn’t change what it is—a doctor’s approval and aid in facilitating the death of a newborn child.

Hate is back in style but that’s no thanks to those who extol it. Those making their living from it are the ones truly prospering.

The conservative viewpoint on hate is that it is morally wrong to endorse any ideology that seeks to deprive an individual of his or her God-given right to life and liberty. And just as this extends to Neo-Nazis, it also extends to those who advocate for the deprivation of rights for anyone who presents ideas which oppose their own.

Liberals, progressive academics, and much of the mainstream media see this quite differently. When you understand how much of their wealth, power, and influence comes from a monopoly on outrage, it should come as no surprise.

American liberalism now abides by three principles. The first, if you do not demand groups which oppose progressivism be dismantled by the state or vigilantes granted special privilege by the state, you are complicit. Next, if you do not see people who hate as enemies of the state, only to be dispelled by force either provided by the state or vigilantes granted special privilege by the state, you are an enabler. Finally, if you do not participate in the crowdsourcing of outrage culture, which provides the foundation of the Hatred Industrial Complex, you are racist/homophobic/xenophobic/sexist and bigoted. Because the list of names a liberty-minded conservative can be called grows daily, I’m sure I missed a few.

Any violation of these three principles can lead you to be named as part of the irredeemable class, ineligible to work or live in this society. And this is true regardless of your ideology. After decades of educating academics who go on to train the permanent class of bureaucrats in government, progressives have finally gotten what they have longed for. No, not a world without hate, but a cultural super weapon which can be deployed to destroy anyone who challenges their power.

Progressive ideology cannot exist in a world based on the equality granted through objective judgements of character. It can only exist in a world where the permanent government class and the academics have the power to force their ideological opponents into submission. On the rare occasion the super weapon fails, progressives can quietly encourage people to stage inauthentic crimes of a bigoted nature to force through policies by crowdsourcing online outrage or through the vast network granted to them by political professionals and their allies in much of the national media.

The list of manufactured outrage from social stagecraft is long and distinguished.  From actor Jussie Smollett’s recently staged homophobic attack to Jackie Coakley’s erroneous report that a University of Virginia chapter of Phi Kappa Psi engaged in her gang rape during initiation rites to Nick Sandamann’s media crucifixion for smiling,  and to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s attempted show trail, the left’s Kabuki theatre game is strong.

But, do you remember the 2014 racist incident at Oberlin College in which the faculty were fully aware the events were staged by students so that they could force through diversity programs? What about the arson of an African American church defaced with pro-Trump graffiti in Greenville, which turned out to have been perpetrated by one of the members? Don’t forget about the Episcopal church in Indiana, which was defaced in a false flag attempt. These serve as a few of the hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of examples of fake stories distributed by mainstream media to invoke outrage. In most cases, the invalidated stories were later quietly disregarded because the truth does not matter to people who seek to control our opinions and viewpoints.

Each of these “false flag” incidents under the guise of defeating hate, was carried out as an effort to make liberty-minded conservatives in America guilty by association.

The people in the Hatred Industrial Complex, whether members of mainstream media, academic progressives, or government careerist, despise the things you and I hold dear. They’re disgusted that you love your country or your spouse. They resent your respect for foundational ideas like natural rights and a constitution written to preserve those principals. They hate that you and I believe in God and have the temerity to associate with others who value religious liberty. The people in the HIC believe they know best and they aren’t interested in hearing your dissent, especially if it emanates from a rural town or a red state.  Unless you agree that America is a fundamentally unjust place with only victims and victimizers, we must spend trillions to save the planet from climate catastrophe, and capitalism is the root of all evil, you’re seen as an obstacle to progressive utopia. What exactly does this utopia look like? I’m not sure but I know it’s a place where the HIC can keep lining their pockets and leveraging their power.

Without a concerted effort by every liberty-minded conservative to limit the Hatred Industrial Complex, those who truly are the legitimate victims of crimes motivated by bias will no longer have the capacity to pursue justice. The very foundation of equality and justice under the law will be eroded and eventually destroyed.  If we don’t put up a fight for the real American values, truth will be lost to the theater of the outrageous.

If outrage soon becomes the policy currency, most of us are going to wind up being flat broke.