close

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.

Both the State Senate and House have passed legislation that prohibits the abortion of an unborn child with a detectable heartbeat. Gov. Phil Bryant is standing ready to sign the bill into law once lingering differences have been settled.

This bill comes in the wake of the recent and shocking New York legislation, along with similar legislation concerning late term and post birth abortion.

If the heartbeat bill becomes law, the only way to obtain an abortion after the heartbeat is detected would be when medical emergencies, the life of the mother or loss of major bodily function, necessitate. The bill also stipulates that the Mississippi State Board of Health is to regulate the appropriate methods for performing an examination to detect the fetal heartbeat.

Furthermore, any physician who does perform an abortion procedure without first detecting a fetal heartbeat will be subject to license revocation or disciplinary action. The ramifications of this bill are far reaching on both sides of the debate.

Bryant, a fervent defender of life, has stated that an unborn child is a human being and he/she have rights bestowed upon them. When questioned about the recent legislation in New York, along with other states, he commented that he hopes that these blatant attempts to grow a culture of death will shock people into realizing just how horrific this movement has become and motivate action. It appears that this just might be true.

The states of Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee are also attempting to pass versions of a heartbeat bill and enforce stricter abortion laws.

Naturally, abortion proponents will do all they can to stop this.

This is not simply a political debate; it is a deeply personal one. Pregnancy centers around the nation, including the Center for Pregnancy Choices in Jackson, witness the powerful testimonies of women choosing life after hearing or seeing their baby’s heartbeat. As someone who has personally heard the accounts of such women, I can attest that it is a tender and life-altering moment.

“We see lives changed when women are able to connect with their baby through sonogram images, Erin Kate Goode, the executive director of CPC, stated. The CPC has seen this truth reflected in so many of its client’s journeys.

One expectant mother who visited CPC said, “Once I got my free sonogram, I fell in love with my baby, and I knew right away I wanted to keep her.”

“I saw my little bitty baby,” another former patient said, “I saw its heartbeat. I did my nervous laugh, attempting to hold back my tears, as I watched my tiny baby jump and dance around. That’s when I knew that I was going to do this, whatever it took.”

While the debate is considered from every angle, the same truth emerges; an unborn child with a detectable heartbeat is a life.

The heartbeat bill only reinforces what medical science has known all along, a heartbeat is not only an indication of a viable pregnancy, it is intrinsically bonded with life. It is with hope that we witness life beginning to win and it is with pride that we know Mississippi is a pioneer of the movement to value every heartbeat.

Many people are still wondering what the future holds in Oxford.

It’s been three months since Jeff Vitter announced he would leave his role as Chancellor of the University of Mississippi, leaving behind a legacy which could best be described as tattered.

A tenure marred by declining enrollment, the prohibition of the playing Dixie at football games, the removal of the state flag from university property, and NCAA sanctions could leave little to the imagination as to why people seemed to always be asking, “What’s going on at Ole Miss?”

In Vitter’s departure, both conservative and progressive students who were displeased with his leadership rejoiced in the notion that the university could restore its stature. Yet to date nothing has changed.

Larry Sparks, who took over as Chancellor following Vitter’s resignation, has indicated that the extent of his interest in the role extends only to keeping the seat warm for whomever the Institutions for Higher Learning selects. But it still remains unclear as to who that may be.

The question Ole Miss grapples in the selection of its leadership is one which has consistently been asked throughout all actions undertaken by the university: What exactly is Ole Miss and what does it want to become?

If you were to ask students and alumni, the vast majority would say they treasure Ole Miss as a bastion of southern heritage and tradition, seeking its preservation for future generations to enjoy. However, if you were to ask university faculty that sentiment would rarely be echoed, if at all. It is this disconnect which has led Ole Miss to where it finds itself today.

A faculty comprised of out-of-state academics which insist it undertake self-flagellation in repentance for existing in a place which high minded costal liberals deem reprehensible cannot coexist with the interests of those the university is meant to serve. It is with this knowledge that Vitter built the legacy which would eventually destroy him, acting to intentionally subvert democracy under the pretext that any change presented with indignation is inherently good.

The nature of all organizations is that those who are held responsible for its decisions are held responsible for its culture. When the organization is one which has a mission to serve, the culture should exist in service of the values and interests of its constituents.

For Ole Miss to find a chancellor who can properly serve the community is one who can understand a clear definition of Ole Miss and remain committed to its values. The next leader doesn’t necessarily have to be from Mississippi, but he or she definitely can’t be against Mississippi and expect to lead successfully.

Ole Miss finds itself at a moment of definition where it may move beyond its fatigue and capitalize on its potential as a university to attract and retain world class talent to Mississippi.

The last two Chancellors at Ole Miss have left much to be desired before an early departure from their roles. All eyes will be on the next leader, because a large contingent of the Ole Miss faithful know the school is on very thin ice today.

The question, “What are you doing?” propelled Twitter from a small Silicon Valley startup to one of the most influential social media companies in the world – at least for the one in twelve Americans on Twitter.

Lauded over by the news media as a convenient prop to introduce what on its face would seem like an impartial cross section of America, all metrics indicate that Twitter has been struggling to maintain its foothold in an increasingly volatile digital climate.

So why do we care so much about Twitter? The blue checkmarks giving us our news do. While only roughly eight percent of Americans use Twitter, it wouldn’t be hyperbolic to suggest that 100 percent of those in the news media do.

If you were to look at recent data, Twitter’s market share has dwindled to a mere 24 percent of adults. Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat, meanwhile, are continuing to expand their presence beyond that of the microblogging service. Twitter explains their decline in market share as the byproduct of a changing landscape, however it is worth noting that Twitter has changed a considerable amount itself.

The platform was once hailed as a revolutionary device that would topple authoritarians and usher in an era of global free speech. Now, it has turned into a carefully curated echo chamber where the most minor of utterances can translate into the complete destruction of someone’s personal life, if not become national news.

In the fall of 2013, data showed Twitter was the most popular social media platform for teenagers in the United States. For those who used and later disregarded the service five years ago, not much thought could be attributed to their past tweets.

However, if they were to pursue a sport professionally or a life in outward facing public service then there is a very real possibility that something they posted erroneously could become national news.

Those entering into the social media market for the first time know this well and are less likely to expose themselves to outward risk as platforms less prone to gaffe, such as Snapchat and Instagram, gain foothold. In short Twitter is no longer the platform of the Arab Spring, it is the Twitter of Kyler Murray and lest we forget, Covington Catholic.

When an entire industry in part relies on a service which represents a waning eight percent of the population as a demonstration of widespread American sentiment and in turn treating every action as a premeditated statement, the message becomes disconnected from common thought and is perhaps why the media has such difficulty connecting with the values of middle America.

Twitter from all indications is not dead, in fact it is far from it. Yet we have so commonly accepted Twitter being presented as a cross section of our nation’s public understanding that we have become, in a word, hypnotized by statements which come to us in 280 characters or less. The prerogative of concise communication is that it may deliver maximum impact. On Twitter this manifests itself in wit overpowering fact and outrage before process.

The advice I would give to those spending too much time on Twitter is to take a moment and experience the world, it’s far kinder than it seems.

New York made headlines recently for passing legislation that will legalize abortion to the moment of birth.

The New York state Senate voted 38-24 in favor of the “Reproductive Health Act” last week. This bill has passed the state Senate before but has failed to pass the Assembly in past years. This time, the Assembly passed RHA 92-47.

Press and social media have been in outraged battles over the passage of this state legislation. The implications of this law have shaken up the entire nation.

In Mississippi, it has triggered an influx of volunteer applications and donations to pregnancy help centers from appalled Mississippians across the state.

The cleverly named “Reproductive Health Care Act” is horrific and unconscionable.

This law has five major consequences that should incite fear and disgust in us all:

Most level-headed Americans are appalled at these changes to the New York penal code. Sadly, abortion has only been limited in the third trimester in 43 of our 50 states prior to this legislative session.

What took America over the edge was New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo calling for the entire state to celebrate following his signing of the bill into law. He called for One World Trade Center and other landmarks to be lit in pink, exalting the decision.

Cuomo, who is Catholic, maintains his support of the law despite pending talks of his excommunication from the Catholic Church for violating fundamental beliefs of his own faith. In defense of his unjustifiable actions, he stated, “I’m not here to represent a religion.”

Any decent human can understand the humanity of a child in the third trimester no matter race, religion, or creed.

In an attempt to one-up Cuomo, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam advocated that post-birth abortions ought to be allowed in his state. He voiced support of a bill in his state allowing abortion up to the moment of birth even if the baby was born alive by accident.

A baby born alive would be “kept comfortable” and only “resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired.” If a mother did not want the child born alive, that baby would be left to die a slow and painful death at a medical facility with medical professionals present.

Fortunately, that bill was defeated in committee.

In our state, Mississippi Center for Public Policy advocated a bill last year that banned abortion after 15 weeks gestation. It was halted 30 minutes after Gov. Phil Bryant signed it into legislation by a temporary block. In November, activist District Judge Carlton Reeves blocked the law. Mississippi has not given up Bryant’s dream of making Mississippi the “safest place for an unborn child in America.” The 5th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals will be next to hear the case.

As the law stands, abortion is legal up to 20 weeks gestation in Mississippi.

Mississippi is listed as one of four “trigger law states” that will almost immediately ban abortion if the 1973 decision of Roe vs. Wade is reversed. The abortion lobby is working creatively to prevent states from limiting or banning abortion at any level.

Mississippi may be in far better shape than states like New York or Virginia, but we must remain vigilant in defending our state’s right to rule in defense of preborn children.

Someone has to stand for the life of the preborn while the left crowns the “right to choose” as more valuable than life itself.

There are many things we can do to lift up all children. And we don't need to sacrifice our own children to make that happen.

In a recent NBC Think article, author Noah Berlatsky reflected on Mississippi State University (MSU) Assistant Professor Margaret Hagerman’s new book “White Kids: Growing Up with Privilege in a Racially Divided America.” Berlatsky opens with the conflicting pride he felt when his child lobbied his private secondary school to recognize Columbus Day as Native People’s Day because the school should not celebrate “white imperialism.” (His son’s effort was successful.)

Ignore for a moment that Columbus Day is a celebration of human achievement, global trade, and multiculturalism that has been celebrated for more than a century, including in multiple Latin American, non-white countries. Ignore also that instead of educating the student on the rich tradition of this holiday, the school wasted time accommodating an uninformed child’s protest about a holiday he clearly doesn’t understand.

Held up to any scrutiny, this situation is absurd, but not more absurd than Berlatsky’s reflections on it. Berlatsky is conflicted because, while he is proud of his child’s “anti-racist activism,” he feels shame for his white privilege affording his child an education at an expensive private school where school administrators take such activism seriously. In his view, this exemplifies the much larger problem of structural racism. He then explores the MSU professor’s book.

How About Help the Needy Instead of Hurting Children?

One of the many lazy assertions in this book is that even anti-racist white parents “actively reproduce inequality” by not spending enough time discussing racism with their children and by giving their children books whose characters happen to be white. There is no end to the left’s shaming of people who have done nothing more than teach their kids to be good people to the best of their ability.

Berlatsky has done nothing wrong, and unlike Hagerman suggests, Noah has not actively reproduced racism. On the contrary, his son obviously demonstrated his awareness and opposition of racism at a young age. In an attempt to appease his ideological possession, Noah brainstorms over possible lifestyles choices that might mitigate his child’s privilege footprint.

He pulls from Hagerman’s book: “Everyone is trying to do the best for their kid,” she says. “But I actually think that there are times when maybe the best interest of your own kid isn’t actually the best choice. Ultimately, being a good citizen sometimes conflicts with being good parents. And sometimes maybe parents should decide to be good citizens over being good parents.”

Berlatsky mulls over a few examples of this. “That could mean voting to raise taxes so to better fund public schools. Maybe in our case it should have meant choosing a public school rather than a private one.”

This Isn’t Only Stupid, But Evil

It’s incoherent, at best, to imply that worse parents make better citizens. While white liberals ponder the various ways they should have neglected their kids to appease “oppressed groups,” I and many other millennials reject this ideological disease.

I am a young, half-white mother and wife who has seen the expansion of the radical left politically correct culture since I was in elementary school. When Gillette is lecturing you about how to behave, you know things have gone too far. The only result of this decades-long Marxist campaign is more outrage at good people.

According to many on the left, I am supposed to teach my son of the repressive nature of his existence as he develops. I am to tell him at every turn to sacrifice himself to others for the transgression of being himself. This thinking is not only intellectually pitiful, but also profoundly evil.

How About Some More Constructive Responses

The smallest minority is the individual. I reject the notion that my son’s value is determined by his skin color, sex, or life circumstance. I look forward to teaching my son about self-discovery. I want to see him develop his talents and learn to appreciate the talents of his peers. I want him to feel the joy of hard work and achievement, and to admire the qualities of others in a society that appreciates individuals.

If we raise our children to appreciate individualism, then we will end all the various flavors of collectivism, from racism to white privilege. Teaching our children about the horrors of imperialism, slavery, and racism is critical. However, there is no greater good to be gained by sacrificing the quality of my child’s education or economic circumstance.

To maximize the quality of each child’s path to quality education, economic prosperity, and social well-being, I propose a few different policy points. School choice, not mandated-by-ZIP code education, will give children the propensity to thrive. Rather than blame individuals who move to a highly rated school district or make them feel guilty for choosing to send their child to a private school, open the door to more students to do the same.

Eliminating barriers to economic progress, such as excessive licensing, will create a world of jobs for entrepreneurs, especially low-income entrepreneurs. While licensing was once limited to areas that most believe deserve licensing, such as medical professionals, lawyers, and teachers, this practice has greatly expanded over the past five decades.

In my home state of Mississippi, approximately 19 percent of workers need a license to earn a living. This includes everything from a shampooer, who must receive 1,500 clock hours of education, to a fire alarm installer, who must pay more than $1,000 in fees to become licensed. In total, there are 66 low- to middle-income occupations that are licensed in Mississippi. Similar stories exist is every state, yet the outcomes are the same: higher cost for consumers and less opportunity for entrepreneurs.

Finally, promoting, or at the very least not discouraging, marriage will lead to more intact families and the benefits that surround it.  The success sequence––graduate from high school, obtain employment, and get married before having children––has long been debated, but it is undeniable from numerous points of view that following these (not so simple) steps will put an individual, and a family, on the path to prosperity.

This, of course, will require a cultural response, similar to anti-smoking campaigns, as much as a government response. Unfortunately, too few people seem interested in taking up the cause of marriage, despite it being the leading cause of inequality in American children’s lives.

I want what is best for my son, and I will do what it takes to make that happen, no matter the political trends. And that is the best thing we can do for a better society.

This column appeared in The Federalist on January 30, 2019.

As many prepare for end-of-year charitable contributions, data from the Internal Revenue Service continues to show Mississippi as one of the most charitable states in the country.

According to the IRS, some 250,000 Mississippians took an itemized deduction for charitable giving last year. The average deduction in the Magnolia State was $7,135. This is the 12th highest average in the country.

The top five charitable states were Wyoming ($12,991), Arkansas ($10,935), Utah ($10,165), South Dakota ($10,020), and Tennessee ($8,644).

Along with two of Mississippi’s neighbors coming in the top five nationally, Alabama placed ninth at $7,543 per contribution and Louisiana was 18th at $6,646 per contribution.

The five least charitable states were Rhode Island ($3,354), Maine ($3,643), Hawaii ($4,112), New Jersey ($4,326), and Wisconsin ($4,391).

As a note, this isn’t necessarily total amount of giving, but the total amount that eligible taxpayers deducted on their income taxes in 2016. A donation that was made but not reported on tax filings would not be counted in this report.

And as the standard deduction will be increased because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that passed last year, it is assumed that far fewer individuals and families will itemize their deductions this year. That will impact tax filings, but what effect it has on actual charitable giving remains to be seen.

magnifiercross linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram