Colin Kaepernick, NFL quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, has generated a dust-up over his refusal to stand during the “Star Spangled Banner.” Kaepernick said “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

While some “progressives” are defending his stunt, arguing that a verse of the National Anthem that is never sung—anywhere—has a racist message, Kaepernick didn’t mention the National Anthem, he referred to the flag.

For those who don’t know, Colin Kaepernick was adopted by a white family after his destitute, 19-year-old, white birth mother gave him up. His black biological father abandoned him and his mother before his birth. Kaepernick excelled at basketball, baseball, and football in high school and in addition to a football scholarship, he was offered multiple scholarships to play collegiate baseball. He has made millions playing for the NFL since 2011.

So, some questions for Kaepernick:

When you say the country, what exactly do you mean? The government? Every branch of government? Every department? Every elected official? The Constitution? Laws? Which laws? The police? Every police department? Every police officer? Teachers in government schools?

Does your assessment of the unworthiness of America include the sacrifices of soldiers who have given their lives to defend and protect people all around the world? Does it include men like my father who served and suffered during WWII? Does it include missionaries and medical personnel like Jim Elliot and Natalie Bullock who sacrificed the comforts you enjoy and sometimes their lives because they love people of color?

Could it be that the “country” that oppresses people of color is primarily constituted by Democrats?

• After all, it was Democrats who supported Jim Crow laws in the South.

• It was only 23 percent of Democrats in Congress who supported the passage of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which abolished slavery, while 100 percent of Republicans supported it.

• It was Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

• It’s Democrats who have been promoting policies and laws that have incentivized fatherless families, which has long been known to be the central cause of poverty and anti-social behavior.

• It was Democrats who through their demand that homoerotic unions be legally recognized as “marriages” have now institutionalized fatherless (and motherless) families.

• It’s Democrats who for decades have controlled virtually every major American city where schools are failing people of color and where crime destroys lives.

• It’s Democrats like Barack Obama who, while sending their children to elite, expensive private schools, deny school vouchers for inner city families of color whose children are instead forced into underperforming and dangerous schools. And it’s Democrats who protect teachers unions that enable terrible teachers to keep their jobs.

• It’s Democrats who support Planned Parenthood, the baby-killing machine that profits from the deaths of far more babies of color than colorless babies.

One of the many problems with public schools today is the imbalanced and dishonest way they address the entwined issues of race and American history. Leftist “agents of change” (also known comically as teachers) present a lopsided view of American history, emphasizing the injustices that mar America’s history while de-emphasizing America’s social and political progress and acts of justice and compassion that ignite the imaginations of oppressed peoples around the world. America undeniably has a troubling history with regard to race, but that’s not the whole story.

America also has a remarkable history of racial and ethnic integration and an admirable history of self-correction. Is there a country on the planet that has as successfully integrated as many diverse racial, ethnic, and religious groups as America? Is it possible to walk through a mall or a public school in America without seeing interracial couples or interracial, inter-ethnic groups of teenagers chatting and laughing together? Can you enter a church without seeing families that are multiracial by choice through adoption?

This is a country whose founding principles and documents have made possible the kind of social progress that enabled a biracial baby to be adopted by a white family and go on to earn millions. This  is the country Kaepernick sees as “oppressive” and others see as a social and political marvel.

The American flag represents the greatest nation in history. It’s a country that countless people have died to defend or died in the attempt to arrive at its shores. While Kaepernick continues to publicly demonstrate his disappointment with our imperfect union, perhaps he could tell us which country’s flag he finds worthy of respect.

Presenting “Laurie’s Chinwags”

IFI is pleased to announce a new feature we are calling “Laurie’s Chinwags.” In light of changes in the way many Americans prefer to access information, we’re adding podcasts to our articles. Podcasts will accompany both our new articles as well as previous articles that are of particular importance and relevance. As we add podcasts to previous articles, we will republish them for our subscribers’ convenience.

We hope this new feature will serve the needs and desires of IFI subscribers, and we would appreciate any constructive feedback.

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Obamas-Radical-Revolution.mp3

The most radical cultural revolution in modern history is taking place, fomented and facilitated by Barack Obama’s egregious abuse of power. He is incrementally obliterating any public recognition of and respect for sexual differentiation. In Obama’s brave new world, immutable biological sex will be rendered meaningless.

Last week, reports surfaced that both the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the General Administrative Services (GSA) have issued “guidelines” or regulations essentially mandating that those government organizations and institutions that fall under the purview of these agencies must treat humans as if their intrinsic, objective, immutable biological sex has no meaning, not even in the most private and intimate contexts.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

In 2012, HUD published its “Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity final rule,” which stated that “Inquiries as to sex are permitted…when determining eligibility for a temporary, emergency shelter that is limited to one sex because it has shared sleeping areas and/or bathrooms.”

But no more.

A new document was published in February 2015 which reverses that position:

Best practices suggest that where the provider is uncertain of the client’s sex or gender identity, the provider simply informs the client or potential client that the agency provides shelter based on the gender with which the individual identifies. There generally is no legitimate reason in this context for the provider to request documentation of a person’s sex in order to determine appropriate placement, nor should the provider have any basis to deny access to a single-sex emergency shelter or facility solely because the provider possesses identity documents indicating a sex different than the gender with which the client or potential client identifies. The provider may not ask questions or otherwise seek information or documentation concerning the person’s anatomy or medical history. Nor may the provider consider the client or potential client ineligible for an emergency shelter or other facility because his or her appearance or behavior does not conform to gender stereotypes. [emphasis added]

This policy change means that any shelter that receives government funding may no longer take into account the sex of persons when assigning them to single-sex accommodations. In order to receive government funds, shelters must house men and women in accordance with the sex they wish they were or claim to be rather than the sex they actually are.

Shelters—like the 200 shelters run by Catholic Charities—will be prohibited from asking anyone seeking emergency shelter in single-sex accommodations about their sex. All that’s required for men to access women’s shelters where abused and traumatized women are often housed is the claim by men that they “identify”—whatever that means—as women.

According to the Washington political newspaper The Hill, this new “guidance” will be finalized in September.

General Administration Services

Just days after the HUD news came out, news broke that the GSA will be requiring all restrooms in the 9,000 buildings and offices it oversees, including “federal courthouses…the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs,” to be co-ed. This new regulation will apply to both federal employees who work in those government buildings as well as all visitors. According to GSA officials, this regulation “is based on a review of recent rulings and directives from the Departments of Education and Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.”

And so, the ideological collusion comes to light.

The Departments of Justice and Education

Obama’s GSA is basing its decision on Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and on Obama’s Department of Education (ED), both of which divined and declared that the word “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 respectively didn’t actually mean sex but instead meant sex and “gender identity.”

For those who may have forgotten, it was Obama’s radical attorney general Loretta Lynch who proclaimed that separate restrooms for men and women are analogous to separate restrooms for blacks and whites. (I assume, therefore, that Lynch refuses to use women’s restrooms as an act of civil disobedience against unjust discriminatory practices. Come to think of it, what a paltry act of defiance using the men’s restroom would constitute in the face of such a grave social evil. Lynch should be showering with men in the Capitol Hill health club to demonstrate her commitment to “inclusivity, diversity, compassion and open-mindedness” and her solidarity with oppressed men who wish they were women.)

The ED is similarly abusing its power by requiring all minor children and college students in government schools to share restrooms, locker rooms, dorm rooms, and hotel rooms for school-sponsored overnight trips with persons of the opposite sex.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) also plays a role in this toxic ideological potage. Lesbian Chai Feldblum, Obama’s recess appointment to the EEOC, was instrumental in redefining the word “sex” for the purposes of advancing sexual deviance in the EEOC case Macy v. Holder. In 2010, “Mia” Macy, a male police detective who pretends to be a woman, applied for a job with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He was turned down and filed a complaint with the EEOC which found in his favor:

The EEOC stated that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination prohibits discrimination on the basis of both biological sex and gender and that ‘gender’ encompasses not only a person’s biological sex but also the cultural and social aspects associated with masculinity and femininity. Thus, discrimination against a person because that person is transgender is discrimination based on sex. [emphasis added]

More recently, in a landmark case, the “EEOC as an agency of the federal government, sued a private business on behalf” of a man who pretends to be a woman. Fortunately, in a rare instance of judicial sanity, a judge ruled against “Aimee” Stephens who sued the private funeral home that fired him. The judge ruled that “Enforcement of Title VII ‘would impose a substantial burden on [the funeral home’s] ability to conduct business in accordance with its sincerely-held religious beliefs.’”

So, Obama has used the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the General Services Administration, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to advance his radical, anti-science social and political revolution. The expansion of the federal government into the behemoth it has become has made this revolution possible. This expansive, intrusive, coercive federal monster now demands that all Americans treat biological sex as if it has no meaning. Bureaucrats are forcing all Americans—including children—to treat gender-dysphoric, sex-rejecting persons as if they are, in reality, the sex they wish they were as opposed to the sex they actually are.

What next? Force us to pretend the world is flat?

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative, urging him or her to rein in the un-elected, leftist federal bureaucrats who are putting our family members in uncomfortable and dangerous situations.

Demand that they take action to stop to the federal takeover of shelters, restrooms, and locker rooms.

You can also place a phone call to your federal lawmaker via the United States Capitol switchboard by calling (202) 224-3121.

IFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachmann!  She distinguished herself by not only forming and chairing the Tea Party Caucus in 2010 in the U.S. House but also through her courageous and outspoken pro-life leadership as attested to by her rating of zero from NARAL.

Please register today before the early bird special expires.

(Caution: may not be suitable for younger readers)

MP3 Version:

The revolution to recast homoerotic activity as morally, ontologically, and teleologically equivalent to heterosexuality has been built on a foundation of lies, and one by one those lies are being exposed. Unfortunately, the same culture that swallowed those poisonous lies has been so thoroughly indoctrinated, or is so incapable of critical thought, or is so cowed by fear of homosexualists that the exposure of deceit will not matter.

We were told homosexuals constitute 10% of the population. That was a lie.

We were told that “sexual orientation” is biologically determined like race. That was a lie.

We were told that “sexual orientation” is in all cases immutable. That was a lie.

And the cultural landscape shifted based on these lies.

The consequences of this perverse sexual revolution are visited most tragically upon children—children who are being acquired by men and women to be raised intentionally as motherless or fatherless, who are being taught lies about sexuality by the government, and who are being denied proper care for their disordered thoughts and feelings.

A new Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study exposes the profound dysfunction and suffering of teens in grades 9-12 who “identify” as homosexual, bisexual, or are unsure of their “sexual identity.” While the press focuses on the sections of this study that address the serious issue of bullying, here are other deeply troubling statistics regarding homosexuality that demand at least as much or more attention as well as unbiased examination of possible causes:

Forced to Have Sexual Intercourse

• 5.4% of heterosexual students had ever been physically forced to have sexual intercourse when they did not want to while 17.8% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students had been.

Physical Dating Violence

• Of those students who dated someone during the 12 months before the survey, 8.3% of the heterosexual students reported being deliberately hit, slammed into something, or injured with an object or a weapon as compared to 17.5% of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Sexual Dating Violence

• Of those students who had dated someone during the 12 months before the survey, 9.1% of the heterosexual students had been forced to do sexual things by the person they were dating as compared to 22.7% of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Felt Sad or Hopeless

• During the 12 months before the survey, 26.4% of heterosexual students had felt so sad or helpless almost every day for 2 or more weeks in a row that they stopped doing some usual activities as compared to 60.4% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Seriously Considered Attempting Suicide

• 14.8% of heterosexual students had seriously considered attempting suicide during the 12 months before the survey as compared to 42.8% of gay, lesbian, or bisexual students.

Attempted Suicide

• 6.4% of heterosexual students had attempted suicide one or more times during the 12 months before the survey as compared to 29.4% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Drank Alcohol Before Age 13

• 16.3% of heterosexual students had drunk alcohol (more than a few sips) for the first time before age 13 as compared to 24.5% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Tried Marijuana Before Age 13

• 6.8% of heterosexual students had tried marijuana for the first time before age 13 as compared to 13.9% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Ever Used Hallucinogenic Drugs

• 5.5% of heterosexual students had used hallucinogenic drugs (e.g., LSD, PCP, or mescaline) one or more times during their life as compared to 11.5% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Ever Used Cocaine

• 4.2% of heterosexual students had used some form of cocaine one or more times during their life as compared to 10.6% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Ever Used Ecstasy

• 4.1% of heterosexual students had used ecstasy one or more times during their life as compared to 10.1% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Ever Used Heroin

• 1.3% of heterosexual students had used heroin one or more times during their life as compared to 6.0% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Ever Used Methamphetamines

• 2.1% of heterosexual students had used methamphetamines one or more times during their life as compared to 8.2% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Ever Took Steroids Without a Doctor’s Prescription

• 2.6% of heterosexual students had taken steroid pills or shots without a doctor’s prescription one or more times during their life as compared to 9.7% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Ever Took Prescription Drugs Without a Doctor’s Prescription

• 15.5% of heterosexual students had taken prescription drugs (e.g., Oxycontin, Percocet, Vicodin, codeine, Adderall, Ritalin, or Xanax) without a doctor’s prescription one or more times during their life as compared to 27.5% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Ever Used Inhalants

• 5.6% of heterosexual students had sniffed glue, breathed the contents of aerosol spray cans, or inhaled paints or sprays to get high one or more times during their life as compared to 17.3% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Is it possible that some teens who identify as homosexual, bisexual, or unsure developed homoerotic attraction as a result of forced sex, also known as rape? Can leftists reasonably argue that childhood molestation never in any case results in homoerotic attraction or the assumption of a homosexual or bisexual “identity” or uncertainty about “sexual identity”?

Is it possible that both drug use and homoerotic attraction are both symptoms of family dysfunction, childhood abuse, and/or social ostracism and bullying unrelated to “sexual orientation”?

Are leftists so sure that societal disapproval and/or bullying are the central causes of sadness, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts among homosexual and bisexual teens that counseling which explores other possible contributive factors and may lead to “sexual identity” change should be legally banned?

Can leftists be certain that the unhappiness and dysfunctional behaviors of homosexual and bisexual teens are not caused by an internal, natural, and not socially constructed sense that homoerotic feelings are disordered and homoerotic activity is immoral? In other words, perhaps their sadness and unhealthy behaviors reflect the operation of conscience: “They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them” (Romans 2:15).

Those who truly love children would set aside their own sexual desires and plans for social and political revolution. They would be willing to examine impartially all factors that may contribute to homoerotic attraction or the assumption of a homoerotic “identity” and attendant unhealthy behaviors.

And those whose identity is found in Christ should better balance grace and truth by loving these children while always affirming God’s truth. True and holistic healing come from God: “He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds.” (Psalm 147:3).

Identifying with Christ may not result in the eradication of all homoerotic attraction—though it may—just as it may not result in the eradication of any other of the myriad sinful desires humans experience. It does, however, mean freedom from bondage to those desires. And it points the way to peace and fulfillment in the midst of trials and temptations.

Perhaps leftists should apply these words from President Barack Obama to the tragic suffering of children who experience unchosen homoerotic feelings:

“If there is a step we can take to save even one child…we should take that step.”

Perhaps one step is entertaining the possibility that homoerotic attraction has causes to which leftists prefer to turn their blind eyes.

IFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachman!  She not only distinguished herself by forming and chairing the Tea Party Caucus in 2010 in the U.S. House, but as a courageous and outspoken pro-life leader, as attested to by her rating of zero from NARAL.

Please register today, before the early bird special expires…

In an astonishing act of hubris, abrogation of local control over education, and obsequiousness to Barack Obama, Obama-handmaiden Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed a “friend of the court” brief” (i.e., an amicus curiae brief) begging for Illinois to be subject to Obama’s illegal command that public schools allow boys in girls’ restrooms and locker rooms and vice versa.

Following the “guidance” from Obama’s Department of Education via the Office for Civil Rights to integrate sexually all restrooms and locker rooms in government schools, eleven states led by Texas filed a lawsuit in late May requesting that an injunction be issued to stop the implementation of Obama’s “guidance.” This lawsuit includes a 1975 quote from current U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said that “‘[s]eparate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.’”

Then leftist attorneys general stepped in on behalf of not only their own states but all 50 states to insist on having the federal government rob citizens in every state of their right to decide if they want their local schools to have coed, sex-integrated restrooms and showers for children and teens.

The brief Madigan signed describes concerns of those states opposed to Obama’s diktat as “speculative and inaccurate claims of harm,” adding that “respecting the civil rights of transgender individuals will cause Plaintiffs no harm. Their allegations of safety risks are unsupported hyperbole.”

The sex of humans cannot change. Boys who wish they were girls remain unalterably boys no matter what chemical, surgical, or sartorial changes they make. And boys have no “civil right” to invade the private spaces of girls.

The suggestion by Madigan et al. that claims of harm are “speculative and inaccurate” requires a definition of “harm.” If “harm” is defined solely as physical assault, the risk is low and posed primarily by boys pretending to be girls. But certainly when boys have easy access to girls’ private facilities the risk is not nil.

Under the Obama diktat, all that’s required for a boy to use girls’ private facilities is his claim to be “transgender.” No parental confirmation needed. No medical diagnosis required. No treatment of any kind required. All that’s required is for a boy to claim that he is “trans” or “bi-gendered” or “gender-fluid,” which I guess means he can float fluidly between those binarily fixed facilities until such time as leftists complete their revolution to destroy all public recognition and accommodation of sex differences. On that day, all restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, and hospital rooms will be coed—and not just for those who reject their sex.

Moreover, not even a “medical” diagnosis of “gender dysphoria,” surgical mutilation, and cross-sex hormone doping can turn a boy into a girl or vice versa. And none of these alchemical protocols justify allowing objectively male or female students into opposite-sex facilities.

But harm is not limited merely to physical assault. Included in the concept of “harm” is the violation of modesty and privacy that takes place when unrelated persons of the opposite sex intrude into restrooms and locker rooms. It is likely that Orthodox Jews, Muslims, theologically orthodox Christians, and even some secularists would find these experiences harmful. For those who know that biological sex per se has profound meaning and is the source of feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy, seeing unrelated persons of the opposite sex partially or fully unclothed as well as being seen partially or fully unclothed by unrelated persons of the opposite sex constitutes harm.

Though it’s incomprehensible to morally deadened leftists, many—perhaps most—men and women prefer not to urinate or defecate in stalls with unrelated persons of the opposite sex doing the same in the stall next to them. These feelings of modesty derived from sex differences are the very reason we have separate restrooms in the first place. What possible difference should it make to girls if the boy in the stall next to them wishes he were a girl or not? Being forced to do their business with unrelated persons of the opposite sex in the neighboring stall also constitutes harm.

Madigan et al. are justifiably concerned about the safety of cross-dressing boys using sex-appropriate restrooms. Now that parents and administrators allow boys to wear lipstick, dresses, and Victoria Secret lingerie with their penises taped down to school, they have put these boys at risk in boys’ locker rooms and restrooms. But the solution to the problem leftist created must not include allowing these boys into girls’ restrooms or locker rooms, or to room with girls on overnight school-sponsored functions as Obama’s diktat requires.

The only reasonable accommodation of such tragically disordered thinking (or egregious rebellion) is single-occupancy facilities. If boys who wish they were girls have the purported right to use facilities with only girls, then surely girls have that right.

The federal government—largely controlled by liberals—has been gobbling up vast swaths of American cultural life, including the education of our children. In so doing, leftists are imposing their subjective and arguable assumptions about, among other things, sexuality on other people’s children as well as violating the 10th Amendment which makes clear that public education is the purview of states—not the federal government:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Liberals make the specious argument that federal intrusion with regard to sex-integrated restrooms and locker rooms is warranted just as it was warranted with regard to racial integration of schools. But that comparison is based on the absurd comparison of the behaviorally neutral condition of race to the disordered subjective desire to be the opposite sex accompanied by futile behavioral choices in the service of pretending to be the opposite sex. For an analogy to be sound, there must be points of correspondence between the analogues. What precisely are the points of correspondence between race and sex-rejection?

In order to impose his radical sexual revolution on our nation’s children, Obama—master violator of the Constitution and the separation of powers—is attempting to unilaterally and illegally change the definition of the word “sex” in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include the rhetorical contrivance “gender identity” (i.e., subjective feelings about one’s sex). And apparatchik Lisa Madigan is helping.

Parents, notify your school administrators and your children’s teachers that under no circumstances may your child or teen use restrooms or locker rooms with persons of the opposite sex, and under no circumstance is your child or teen to be required to use opposite-sex pronouns when referring to any student, staff, or faculty member.

Attention on the poop deck. It seems our “first gay president” intends to “milk,” with pride, his fetish for all things “LGBT” in the closing months (mercifully) of his catastrophic presidency. USNI News (U.S. Naval Institute) reports that the Obama Navy presumes to ram, without consent, the most reprehensible aspects of the extremist homosexual political agenda down the throats of a divided American public.

“The Navy is set to name a ship after the gay rights icon and San Francisco politician Harvey Milk, according to a congressional notification obtained by USNI News.

“The July 14, 2016 notification, signed by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, indicated he intended to name a planned Military Sealift Command fleet oiler USNS Harvey Milk (T-AO-206).”

An “oiler.” You can’t make this stuff up.

It remains unclear whether the USNS Harvey Milk will come equipped with sonar/radar or Grindr, be modeled after a Disney “cruise” liner and adorned with the American flag, or the rainbow colors of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Why Disney?

What would you call a 33-year-old man who both had, and axiomatically acted upon, a deviant sexual appetite for underage, drug-addicted, runaway boys?

No, not Jerry Sandusky, but good guess.

What would you call a man of whom, as regards sexual preference, his own close friend and biographer confessed, “Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems”?

In a 2013 interview with OneNewsNow.com, I called this man “demonstrably, categorically an evil man based on his [statutory] rape of teenage boys.”

But you can call him Harvey Milk.

Harvey Milk’s only claim to fame is that he was the first openly homosexual candidate to be elected to public office (San Francisco city commissioner). His chief cause was to do away with the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. In 1978 Milk was murdered over a non-related political dispute by fellow Democrat Dan White.

And a “progressive” martyr was born.

Merriam Webster defines “pederast” as “one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy.” It defines “statutory rape” as “the crime of having sex with someone who is younger than an age that is specified by law.”

Harvey Milk was both a pederast and, by extension, a statutory rapist. One of Milk’s victims was a 16-year-old runaway from Maryland named Jack Galen McKinley. Motivated by an apparent quid pro quo of prurience, Milk plucked McKinley from the streets.

Randy Shilts was a San Francisco Chronicle reporter and close friend to Harvey Milk. Though Shilts died of AIDS in 1994, he remains, even today, one of the most beloved journalists in the “LGBT” community.

Shilts was also Harvey Milk’s biographer. In his glowing book “The Mayor of Castro Street,” he wrote of Milk’s “relationship” with the McKinley boy: “… Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.”

In a sane world, of course, the only direction his “new lover” should have pulled him was toward San Quentin. But, alas, today’s America is anything but sane.

Don’t miss Matt Barber’s new book, “Hating Jesus: The American Left’s War on Christianity”!

Whereas McKinley, a disturbed runaway boy, desperately sought a “father figure” to provide empathy, compassion, wisdom and direction, he instead found Harvey Milk: a promiscuous sexual predator who found, in McKinley, an opportunity to satisfy a perverse lust for underage flesh.

Years later, McKinley committed suicide.

Another teen who crossed paths with Harvey Milk was Christian convert and former homosexual Gerard Dols. In a 2008 radio interview with Concerned Women for America, Dols shared of how – as a physically disabled teen – the “very nice” Harvey Milk had encouraged him in 1977 to run away from his Minnesota home and come to San Francisco.

According to Dols, Milk told him, “Don’t tell your parents,” and later sent him a letter with instructions. Thankfully, the letter was intercepted by Dols’ parents, who then filed a complaint with the Minnesota attorney general’s office.

The incident was swept under the rug.

Milk was also reputed to offer room and board in his San Francisco flat to young sailors in exchange for sodomy. His history of child sexual abuse was (and is) no secret to Obama or the homosexual community.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council penned a detailed expose on Milk in 2009. “He continued to engage in homosexual conduct while serving in the U. S. Navy,” wrote Sprigg. “Shilts reports that Milk, who had his own apartment off base, would pick up hitchhiking sailors by offering them a bed to sleep in. ‘The guests often would not know that Milk’s apartment had only one bed until they walked in the door.’

“Milk later exploited his time in the Navy during his political career – by lying about it, claiming falsely that he had received a dishonorable discharge for his homosexuality. Milk ‘knew the story would make good copy,’ according to Shilts. ‘Maybe people will read it, feel sorry for me and then vote for me,’ Milk told one campaign manager.

“The information Shilts provides about Milk’s sexual partners is revealing about the nature of male homosexual life in America,” concluded Sprigg. “Milk’s first long-term lover, Joe, had his ‘introduction to gay life’ when he performed sex acts upon men in a movie theatre for money – at age 9. Milk’s next lover, Craig, had been arrested after having sex with a 40-year-old man – when Craig was 14. He met Milk when he was 17. ‘[I]t would be to such boyish-looking men in their late teens and early 20s that Milk would be attracted for the rest of his life,’ Shilts reports. Another lover, Jack, moved in with Milk when he was 16 and Milk was 33. Jack attempted suicide several times, and once when he physically attacked Milk, ‘Harvey literally tied him up and threw him in a closet,’” reports Shilts.

So what does a man like Harvey Milk get for his crimes and predatory predilections? While most sexual predators get time in prison and a dishonorable mention on the registry of sex offenders, Harvey Milk got his own California state holiday (“Harvey Milk Day”), official U.S. postage stamp, a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom and, now, is honored with a U.S. Naval ship in his own name.

God bless America?

This shameful “honor” bestowed upon a child molester is a slap in the face of every man and woman who ever served, fought or died for this great nation in decline. If you’re as disgusted by it as I am, please contact your congressional representative and demand they torpedo this predatory ship of fools.

At the DNC Convention, Michelle Obama made this presumptuous statement:

[T]his election and every election is about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four or eight years of their lives.

Her husband’s non-legal attempt to do just that—to exploit his power to shape the lives of other people’s children—is no more evident than in his command to every government school to allow boys in girls’ locker rooms and restrooms and vice versa. His order, delivered via the Department of Education’s Office for (un)Civil Rights, commands schools to allow students who reject their sex to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms and to do so based on nothing more than their claim that they feel like the opposite sex—or both sexes.

In order to attempt to undergird this diktat with a patina of legal authority, the Office for (un)Civil Rights falsely claims that when Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination based on “sex,” the word “sex” includes “gender identity.” If this redefinition of the word “sex” by unelected government bureaucrats prevails, schools will be prohibited from discriminating based on either sex or “gender identity” (i.e., subjective feelings about one’s objective, immutable sex) in even school facilities in which intimate, personal activities take place.

So, what will this mean? It means that eventually all restrooms, locker rooms, and showers will be co-ed. There will remain no way for schools to prevent non-“trans” students (i.e., normal students) from using opposite-sex locker rooms or showers. Schools will not be able to prohibit boys who accept their sex (i.e., normal boys) from using girls’ locker rooms based on the fact that they are objectively male because schools will have already have allowed other objectively male persons in girls’ locker rooms. And schools will not be able to prohibit normal boys (aka “cisgender” boys) from using girls’ locker rooms, showers, or restrooms because they are not “trans,” because that would constitute discrimination based on “gender identity.” The end game is the obliteration of all public recognition and accommodation of sex differences even in private areas.

If Obama’s pernicious goal is realized, people of faith will no longer be able to justify keeping their children in public schools. Parents cannot ethically place their children under the tutelage of teachers, administrators, and school board members so foolish that they don’t understand the meaning of biological sex and who will not protect the physical privacy of children and teens.

In the service of preventing this abuse of power and the destruction of respect for sex differences in our taxpayer-funded schools, IFI has sent this letter of warning, written by attorney Jason Craddock, to the Illinois State Board of Education Superintendent Dr. Tony Smith and Board Chairman Rev. James Meeks.

(Click to enlarge)

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send  Superintendent Smith and Board Chairman Meeks an email or fax asking them to please prohibit school administrators from implementing a policy that would permit gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex restrooms and/or locker rooms.

Let these school officials know that under no circumstance will your child be permitted to share a restroom or locker room with students of the opposite sex. Let them know that as a taxpayer, you are concerned about the modesty, privacy, and safety of students and about the liability of school districts for failing to protect students.

Follow IFI on Social Media!

Be sure to check us out on social media for other great articles, quips, quotes, pictures, memes, events and updates.

Like us on Facebook HERE.
Subscribe to us on YouTube HERE!
Follow us on Twitter @ProFamilyIFI

Written by Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (Ret.)

In response to the July 14 Nice, France terrorist attack that killed 84, former House Speaker Newt Gringrich called for deportation of Muslims supporting sharia law. President Barack Obama immediately criticized the suggestion as “repugnant” and “un-American.”

Shariah law evolves primarily from the Koran, a body of moral and religious laws dictating almost every aspect of Muslim life. Coming from the lips of Allah, they supposedly represent perfection and are incorruptible by man’s interpretation.

However, many verses of the Koran conflict with each other. This led Muslim clerics to adopt the concept of abrogation – giving later verses preference – lest Allah be deemed imperfect!

Application of shariah should concern any rational person for various reasons including intolerance for non-Muslims, brutal punishments for sinning Muslims and oppression of women.

Why has the media failed to query Obama on such aspects of Islamic law? Why specifically should Obama believe it repugnant to oppose such intolerance, brutality and inequality simply because it is packaged as a religion?

A recent poll of young (18-29) American adherents to Islam and its law reveals a startling 26 percent believe suicide bombings are justified against non-believers, with another 15 percent more lukewarm to the idea, believing justification is warranted only “often/sometimes.” In France, among the same age group, 42 percent believe it always justified and 19 percent often/sometimes justified.

Why has the media failed to query Obama on such numbers of young people justifying violence based on their religion while he sees no connection?

As we witness a world in turmoil-caused by millions of fleeing Middle East Muslim refugees, by ungrateful Muslim immigrants expecting host nations in Europe to tolerate their religious beliefs while they refuse to reciprocate, by Muslims murdering Muslims in Muslim lands, by the West repeatedly being targeted by Muslim terrorists – only to hear Obama declare Islam is peaceful, why does the media fail to query him on his belief?

A website monitoring the number of Islamic terrorist attacks taking place globally since 9/11 records more than 28,800 occurrences. These are not acts of “violent extremism” as Obama labels them; these are calculated acts of terrorism by Muslims seeking to kill apostates or infidels in the name of their religion.

Why has the media failed to query Obama on his refusal to distinguish between violent and Islamic extremism?

In June alone, 238 such Islamic terrorist acts were committed in 33 different countries. Another source reports since 9/11, a total of 89 Islamist terror attack plots have been uncovered in the U.S.

Why has the media failed to query Obama on his refusal to link terrorism and Islam to these plots?

Muslim leaders, such as Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, have acknowledged Islam is not peaceful and in need of reform to accommodate a 21st century world. Obama has yet to support Sisi’s call for reform.

Why has the media failed to query Obama about Sisi’s call for a not-so-peaceful religion’s reformation?

Islamist threats have prompted Middle East states to start monitoring mosques in their countries (more than 3000 in Egypt and 20,000 in Saudi Arabia).

Why has the media failed to query Obama on why such monitoring is necessary if Islam is a peaceful religion?

Obama chastises our police officers for failing to acknowledge internal problems have caused deaths of black suspects during arrests.

Why has the media failed to query Obama on acknowledging his own problem – leading to far many more deaths – in refusing to recognize Islam’s violent side?

In addition to Obama, only one other American president has read the Koran. Having learned from Islam’s holy book and a Muslim ambassador in 1805 at the end of the first Barbary War that the Koran encouraged unprovoked attacks against non-Muslims, Thomas Jefferson sought funding to build a navy. His knowledge of the Koran’s mandate enabled the U.S. Navy to defeat the Muslim pirates in the second war.

Why has the media failed to query Obama on why he remains blind to Jefferson’s justified concerns about Islam’s aggressive mandate?

The Muslim Brotherhood, which declared war against America in 2010, has been embraced by Obama. This is in spite of its once-secret but still operational war plan to undermine U.S. laws by “civilization jihad,” forcing America’s submission to sharia. A 2015 poll indicates 51 percent of American Muslims seek to make this happen.

Why has the media failed to query Obama on the Brotherhood’s nefarious war plan – a president who instead of banning its leadership from the White House welcomes it? He continues to embrace it even as Congress considers legislation to join our allies in declaring it a terrorist organization.

In choosing a site to give his 2009 kumbaya speech concerning U.S. relations with the Muslim world, Obama selected Egypt’s al-Azhar University – the most influential Islamic learning center in the Sunni world. Al-Azhar endorses the centuries old “Conditions of Omar” as a mandate of the Koran by which non-Muslims are forced to convert to Islam, die or pay tribute. Astonishingly despite this Obama praised al-Azhar in his speech for carrying “the light of learning through so many centuries…”

Why has the media failed to query Obama on selecting a university of Islamic learning still adhering to non-Muslim intolerance?

Polls also report 83 percent of Palestinian Muslims, 62 percent of Jordanians and 61 percent of Egyptians approve of jihadist attacks on Americans; 1.5 million British Muslims support Islamic State; 45 percent of British Muslims say clerics preaching violence against the West is representative of “mainstream Islam;” 80 percent of young Dutch Muslims approve of holy war against non-believers.

Why has the media failed to demand Obama defend his position Islam is peaceful in the face of such overwhelming numbers revealing otherwise?

Sadly, at a time we suffer an incompetent president, we also suffer an incompetent media.

This article was originally posted at Accuracy in Media.

Written by William Kilpatrick

In a speech delivered to the Annual MAS-ICNA (Muslim American Society and Islamic Circle of North America) Convention in December 2015, Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), urged Muslim Americans to take up the cause of Black Lives Matter. “Black Lives Matter is our matter,” he said; “Black Lives Matter is our campaign.”

At the same conference, Khalilah Sabra, another activist, told the Muslim audience, “Basically you are the new black people of America… We are the “community that staged a revolution across the world. If we could do that, why can’t we have that revolution in America?” “That revolution” is apparently a reference to the “Arab Spring” revolutions which were inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood and which brought death and destruction to wide swaths of the Middle East and North Africa.

Do CAIR and other activist groups merely want to support Black Lives Matter, or do they hope to recruit blacks to their own cause? In 2014, ISIS used the protests and clashes in Ferguson, Missouri as an opportunity to attempt to recruit blacks to radical Islam. But ISIS is a known terrorist organization while CAIR, despite its shady history, is considered by many to be a moderate, mainstream Muslim organization. Thus, if it wanted to convert blacks, it would presumably want to convert them to a moderate version of Islam.

Or would it? According to Paul Sperry and David Gaubatz, the authors of Muslim Mafia, the supposedly moderate CAIR acts like an underworld cospiracy. In fact, it (along with numerous other prominent Muslim groups) was named by a U.S. court as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist funding case. In addition, CAIR has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates. Moreover, CAIR is a direct outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is also listed as a terrorist group by the UAE, as well as by Egypt and Saudi Arabia. That’s the same Muslim Brotherhood that fomented the “Arab Spring” revolutions, the likes of which Khalilah Sabra wants to bring to America.

The move to bring black Americans into the Islamic fold actually predates CAIR and ISIS by quite a few generations. Black Muslim organizations such as Louis Farrakhan’s The Nation of Islam have been recruiting blacks to their unorthodox brand of Islam for decades. The vast majority of blacks have resisted the temptation to join, perhaps because of NOI’s overt racism, its anti-Semitism, and its criticism of Christianity. In any event, it seems that the Black Muslim movement is being gradually displaced by traditional Sunni Islam. That’s because Sunni Islam has a much better claim to legitimacy—it being a worldwide religion that traces its roots back not to a 1930s Detroit preacher named Wallace Fard Muhammad, but to a seventh century prophet named Muhammad.

Will Islam catch on with black Americans? A great many blacks in America have a strong commitment to Christianity, which serves to act as a buffer against conversion to Islam. Still, it’s likely that Islam will make more inroads into the black community than it has in the past. For one thing, traditional Islam doesn’t have the “kook” factor which keeps most blacks at a distance from The Nation of Islam. The NOI belief system includes giant space ships, an evil scientist who created a race of “white devils,” and, most recently, an embrace of Dianetics.

By contrast, traditional Islam looks much more like … well, like a traditional religion. Indeed, when approaching Christians, Islamic apologists like to play up the similarities between the two religions. Each year around Christmastime, Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s Public Relations Director, sends out a Christmas letter with the message, “We have more in common than you think.”

One of the common elements is Jesus, who is honored as a great prophet in Islam. The self-proclaimed leader of the Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas on July 7, 2016 once wrote of feeling called to follow Jesus into Islam. In November 2015, the Reverend Jeff Hood, a white leftist pastor, wrote:

I have no question that Jesus is so intimately incarnated with and connected to our Muslim friends that he has become one. If we want to walk with Jesus in this moment of extreme oppression and marginalization, we will too.

Islam is an equal-opportunity recruiter. It is open to white leftists and black boxers alike. But Islamic proselytizers may see the present moment as an opportune time to concentrate on blacks. Why is that? Perhaps mainly because our educational system has managed to convince both black and white students that America is a racist society that was built on the back of slavery. Almost all students have been indoctrinated in the narrative that America has a shameful history and heritage. For blacks, however, this version of American history is more plausible because their ancestors actually did suffer from the ravages of slavery and the humiliation of Jim Crow laws.

Nevertheless, during the Civil Rights era and afterwards, both blacks and whites worked hard to heal racial divisions. Racism—both black and white—seemed to be dying a natural death until leftists, with the aid of the media and the Obama administration, managed to resuscitate it. Despite the two-time election of a black president and the appointment or election of black Attorney Generals, black Secretaries of State, black U.S. Supreme Court justices, a black chief of Homeland Security, black mayors, and black police chiefs, a number of blacks seem convinced that white racism is the number one factor that is keeping them down.

Enter CAIR and other Muslim “civil rights” groups that are only too happy to reinforce this narrative. They profess to understand the plight of American blacks because they claim to be victims of a similar oppression—victims of colonialism, racism, and Islamophobia. Part of their pitch is that there is no discrimination in Islam. That might seem a hard sell if you’re familiar with the history of the Arab slave trade or with Islam’s own version of Jim Crow, the dhimmi system. The trouble is, those items have been dropped down the memory hole. The same teachers and textbooks that excoriate the Christian West tend to present Islam as though it were the font of all science and learning.

It might be hoped that blacks who convert will choose some milder form of Islam—something like the Sufi version practiced by Muhammad Ali after he left The Nation of Islam. Unfortunately, that’s not likely because CAIR, ISNA, and similar Islamist groups are practically the only game in town. They have successfully managed to present themselves as the official face of Islam in America, and ISNA, along with the Muslim Brotherhood-linked North American Islamic Trust, controls a majority of the major mosques.

In backing Black Lives Matter, CAIR and company run the risk that their own radicalism will be revealed. Apparently, they don’t consider that to be much of a risk. They know that the court eunuchs in the media will do their best to mainstream Black Lives Matter as a peaceful movement, just as the media has accepted the premise that CAIR itself is a mainstream, moderate organization.

CAIR can also count on President Obama to take the side of Black Lives Matter. Recently, he went so far as to compare it to the Abolitionist Movement against slavery. CAIR is no doubt confident that Obama has its back too. After all, the president made it clear from the start of his administration that he supported the Muslim Brotherhood—the “Mothership” (to borrow an NOI term) out of which CAIR sprang.

At the MSA-ICNA Convention, CAIR and associates felt safe to reveal their revolutionary side. They understand that Obama has a penchant for revolutionary causes—provided that they are leftist (the Castro brothers in Cuba) or Islamist (the “Arab Spring” revolutions) in nature. Before his first election, Obama promised a fundamental transformation of American society. CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are also interested in a fundamental transformation. Indeed, the chief theorists of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, were heavily influenced by Lenin and by communist revolutionary thought. So was Maulana Maududi, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, the Asian equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood. “Islam,” wrote Maududi, “is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals.” He added, “‘Muslim’ is the title of that International Revolutionary Party organized by Islam to carry into effect its revolutionary program.”

That statement has to rank fairly high on the fundamental-transformation scale, and it bears a striking resemblance to the tear-it-down-to-build-it-up leftist school of thought to which Obama belongs. Whether or not the fundamental transformation that Obama desires is the same as that sought by Islamists, he does seem anxious to effect one before his term in office runs out.

The emerging confluence of interests between radical Muslim groups, radical black groups, and a leftist president bent on a radical transformation of America should give us more than pause; it should alarm us. Does Obama intend to speed up the leftward movement of American society during his remaining months in office? Does he hope to accelerate the Islamization of America through a coalition of radical black, leftist, and Islamist groups? Or does he even care what the change is, as long as it’s revolutionary in nature?

Most Americans tend to assume that we are still operating under the same rules that have governed our society since its founding. They have not come to terms with the possibility that some of our leaders are operating under a completely different set of rules—what leftist activist Saul Alinsky called “rules for radicals.”

Read more about Jeff Hood HERE.

Read more about Black Lives Matter HERE.

This article was originally posted at Crisis Magazine.

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, includingPsychological Seduction; Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and the forthcoming The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad.  For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

Summer is the season during which countless parents take their children to visit our magnificent national parks. And this is a special year for our National Park Service in that August 25 marks the 100^th anniversary of the day President Woodrow Wilson signed the bill that officially recognized the National Park Service.

During this centennial year, President Barack Obama has decided that what the world needs now is a national park dedicated to sexual deviance. In his unbiblical belief that homoeroticism is something to be publicly celebrated, on June 24 President Obama proclaimed that the 1969 Stonewall riot that took place outside a seedy homosexual bar in NYC and which officially marks the start of the social and political revolution to normalize sexual deviance should be commemorated:

“I’m designating the Stonewall National Monument as the newest addition to America’s National Park System….I believe our national parks should reflect the full story of our country, the richness and diversity and uniquely American spirit that has always defined us.”

This proclamation follows as expectedly as dark night follows day from a president who has defaced the White House in the garish and misappropriated colors of the rainbow to honor the destruction of marriage by the five Supreme Court justices. About this defacement, Obama was pleased to say “how good the White House looked in rainbow colors.”

The rainbow, the symbol of God’s promise never to destroy the world for our iniquities, is now the appropriated symbol of the celebration of iniquity. The rainbow has been purloined by the perverse to represent the wholesale rejection of God’s order for maleness, femaleness, sex, and marriage. And our president, who claims to be a follower of Christ, not merely shares in the celebration of wickedness but uses the office established by God-fearing men to promote it.

Does Obama know something St. Paul did not, because while Obama celebrates faux-marriage, the creation of intentionally motherless and fatherless children, and riots in support of body- and soul-destroying sexual acts, St. Paul warns of the eternal consequences of homoeroticism:

“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 1:27).

“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).

Was Obama’s unseemly act a proclamation of social and political liberation from unjust oppression, or was it the ordination of a gnostic/neopagan monument to the unyoking of sex from truth?

“For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God?
Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man,
I would not be a servant of Christ”
(Galatians 1:10)

Written by Eric Holmberg

On Friday, June 24, President Barack Obama designated a new national monument at the site of the Stonewall uprising in New York City “to honor the broad movement for LGBT equality”. This was just the latest in a series of speeches and actions on the part of his administration to define down–if not obliterate–any notions of sexual deviance. Worse, to now even memorialize and celebrate it.

Friday’s pronouncement came laden with historical revisionism and stolen valor.

I would encourage the reader to take a few minutes to watch the “your-tax-dollars-in-action” White House video commemorating the uprising. The video was released and promoted through the internet on the 24th and was broadcast on the billboards in Times Square on the eve of the NYC Pride Parade.

And now watch, as they say, the “rest of the story“– the true story.

June 24th is not the first time Obama has melded the normalization and celebration of homosexual couplings into the noble movements for women’s suffrage and civil rights for blacks and other ethnic minorities. I’ve lost track of the number of times he’s trotted out the alliterative triad, “From Seneca Falls, to Selma to Stonewall.” Nor is it the first time he has cherry-picked, embellished and even rewritten history in order to push his progressive agenda.

Another example bears examining.

When Obama  spoke at the site of a true historic landmark–the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma, Alabama–on the 50th anniversary of the pivotal civil rights march, he rightly observed the suffering the praying, non-violent demonstrators endured at the hands of the police.

“We gather here to celebrate them. We gather here to honor the courage of ordinary Americans willing to endure billy clubs and the chastening rod; tear gas and the trampling hoof; men and women who despite the gush of blood and splintered bone would stay true to their North Star and keep marching towards justice. They did as Scripture instructed:  “Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.” ”

But towards the end of the speech, Obama had the audacity to smuggle the so-called right for one man to have sex with another into the same ring of honor, integrity and sacrifice.

“We’re the firefighters who rushed into those buildings on 9/11, the volunteers who signed up to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq.  We’re the gay Americans whose blood ran in the streets of San Francisco and New York, just as blood ran down this bridge.”

This blather, this twisted nugget of unhistorical agitprop, is stunning. And so is the complete pass the comment received from the mainstream press.

When did anyone marching for the right to engage in homosex or use an opposite-sex bathroom get set upon by anyone, much less the police? I’ve covered a number of gay rights parades and protests and all I’ve ever seen are police protecting the demonstrators, sometimes looking the other way while marchers dress and cavort in a manner that would get anyone doing the same things in a different context arrested.

When was any blood shed during these marches, unless it was spilled by the S&M contingency that is invariably present at these parades in major cities? And when exactly did the blood run in the streets of San Francisco and New York like it did during the Selma march?

And how much praying, preaching and seeking to obey the words of Scripture attends these celebrations of hedonism and a “do what thou wilt” sexuality?

Seriously?

And what do you think, the firefighters of 9/11? Soldiers who have risked their lives in Afghanistan? How do you feel about having your sacrifices compared to a phalanx of proverts marching through city streets, throwing condoms and packets of lube out to cheering throngs?

And my black brothers and sisters, how do you feel about having your immutable, genetically determined and morally neutral “race” [ii]—who you are, in other words–conflated with the mutable [iii], genetically non-determinative as well as immoral [iv]actions of others: in other words, what they do [v]?

We’re well on our way to the day when God may set up His own monument in America. It will likely be a grave stone planted in the heart of our nation’s capital. And on it I can imagine His own triad: “Ichabod, Psalm 2:1-6, and Romans 1:18ff.

Not as slick and alliterative as Obama’s. But infinitely more true.

Wake up America.

[ii] Bugs me to use the term because there really is only one race–the human one. But you get what I mean
[iii] There isn’t time to develop this here. Suffice it to say, now that they have won the day and the pressure is off to promote the lie that people are born 100% gay, can’t change and can’t have a loving, meaningful and sexually satisfying heterosexual relationship, even staunch LGBTQ activists are more and more acknowledging that sexual attraction is “fluid”–subject to change.
[iv] This would be according to the vast majority of people and religions throughout human history.
[v] Some will disagree with my nomenclature. But through the lens of a Biblical worldview, a person sexually attracted to members of their own gender is not guilty/has not sinned–is in this sense not a homosexual–until they commit a homosexual act.

This article was originally posted at TheApologeticsGroup.com

Written by Paul Kengor

Last week I looked at the history of the original socialists and at what Pope Francis aptly termed their “ideological colonization” of the family and marriage, work that started in the 19th century with the likes of Robert Owen, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Whether they know it or not, today’s nature-redefiners — who target the family or marriage or sexuality or gender — are standing on the shoulders of those 19th century ideologues, utopians who sought to replace the natural-traditional-Biblical family with their own conceptions. Socialism’s new strategies are certainly different from the old, but the rebellion against God and His absolutes remains the same.

In recent decades, eager socialists in the West have been ripping down the traditional family from Scandinavia to Ireland. The spectacle in Ireland was especially disturbing. It was one of the few places where marriage was redefined not by unhinged judges or a left-wing Parliament but by national referendum in a one-time Catholic country where the majority no longer cares about the 2,000-year Christian teaching on the sanctity of marriage. Ireland’s citizenry once led the way in sending priests and nuns to the English-speaking world. Today the Irish take the lead as angry scoffers at their ancestors’ faith.

Socialism’s Bait and Switch

The contemporary left’s effort to fundamentally transform the family has been relentless, opportunistic and multi-faceted. Even in countries like Italy and France, where the populace was not demanding same-sex marriage, socialist politicians are hell-bent on giving it to them anyway.

Under the leadership of socialist Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, Italy just approved same-sex civil unions, which everyone in the country understands as the Italian left’s mere first step to securing same-sex marriage and adoption of children as well. Still, even there we can mainly blame the electorate. Italian citizens, after all, voted for the socialists. They did so not because they wanted the left’s wider cultural-social agenda. They voted for cradle-to-grave freebies and never-ending pensions from the nanny state, not for the redefinition of family and marriage.

But sadly, what they do not realize (or tolerate as a trade-off for socialism’s wondrous freebies) is that when you vote for the left for economic reasons you inevitably also get its cultural-social agenda — which undermines the natural-traditional-biblical family. If you are addicted to the welfare the socialist doctor provides, then you also accept his cultural brew. Such is the plight of the welfare junkie addicted to the state’s largesse.

Thus, Italians en masse remain sympathetic to Pope Francis and his appeals against same-sex marriage and the “demon” of gender ideology. Nonetheless, when you hold out your hands for “free” government goodies, among the candy in the socialist bag is family redefinition. You want the fat pension? Okay, fine, but you also must give a thumbs-up to gay unions.

Time to pay the socialist piper, kiddies.

Obama and the Democratic Socialists of America

As for America, our situation is not wildly different. We are getting an aggressive “LGBTQ” political-cultural agenda under Barack Obama’s expansive left-wing umbrella of “fundamental transformation.” That was not what the rank-and-file Obama voter was expecting in November 2008. Certainly, the record number of millions of African-Americans (historically the most religious voting demographic in the country) who enthusiastically voted for Obama did so for reasons that had nothing whatever to do with transgender bathroom edicts. But alas, the fundamental transformation they are getting is a White House literally illuminated in the rainbow colors of the gay-rights movement.

We should not delude ourselves that Barack Obama, the most far-left president we have ever had, is not a socialist of some sort. As Stanley Kurtz showed several years ago, we know that Obama was actually for a time in the 1990s a member of the socialist New Party. (For extended analysis, see my book on Obama’s long-time mentor, The Communist.) If Obama remains a socialist, he remains one from a cultural perspective as much as an economic one.

But moving away from Obama, look at the platforms of the dominant socialists in America today when it comes to family-sexuality issues.

The website of the influential Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is quite open about its social goals. Its “About DSA” section lists among its three planks the broad objective of seeking to “restructure gender and cultural relationships.” The DSA has been carrying the rainbow flag for quite some time. It passed a resolution at the annual convention in November 2011:

DSA calls for the legalization of same-sex marriages in all the States and Territories of the United States of America; the enactment of anti-discrimination laws in housing, jobs, education, and health care; and the repeal of state sodomy laws and anti-lesbian and gay restrictions.

That was merely point one in a very comprehensive seven-point statement on “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) Rights” that also included (among other things) “making public schools safe and bias-free for LGBTQ students, defending their free speech in school and allowing students to start gay-straight alliance clubs” and advancing “the rights of LGBTQ people to parent.” Very tellingly, point four in the DSA statement insisted: “DSA advocates for local and federal non-discrimination laws and insists that religious beliefs cannot be used to justify bias.”

For the record, the objectives of the DSA statement are almost identical to those of Socialist Party USA, whose official platform includes a statement pledging, “We are committed to confronting the heterosexism that provides the fertile ground for homophobic violence, and support all efforts toward fostering understanding and cooperation among persons and groups of differing sexual orientations.”

And if you want to go further left still, John Bachtell, Communist Party USA chair, recently writing in People’s World (successor to the Daily Worker), called for a socialist-communist-progressive-liberal-Democrat coalition, coalescing around Bernie Sanders, to “fight uncompromisingly against racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia.”

Marx and Engels: Proud Papas

What would Marx and Engels have thought about their name and ideology being invoked in the modern left’s crusade against “transphobia?” Well, they would have been shocked speechless. But they surely would have appreciated how their left-wing descendants found such handy tools to undermine the traditional family. Today’s leftists may not succeed in a total “abolition of the family” (to borrow from the phrase in The Communist Manifesto), but they are certainly succeeding in fundamentally transforming the institution.

Once upon a time, when we worried about socialists undermining the family, our concern was the economic destitution wrought by the ideology and its counterfactual theories about property and wealth confiscation and redistribution. In the old days, socialists harmed the family by leaving a dad jobless or the household scratching for income in a decimated economy. Today, we need to widen our horizon of socialism’s destructive possibilities. Modern socialists are not thinking merely about managing the state’s economic means of production; they are seeking to completely manage and revamp society’s very understanding of the human family itself.

They are, in short, fundamental transformers not just economically but culturally. And they operate a giant wrecking ball that is wreaking havoc in millions of lives.

This article was originally posted at the Stream.org

According to an Associated Press report, the U.S. Senate voted to approve a $602 billion defense bill which also mandates that our daughters register for Selective Service and a possible future draft.  This gender blind, biologically indifferent proposal was sponsored by U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who also happens to chair the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee.

Both Illinois U.S. Senators, Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk, voted in favor of this irresponsible legislation.  The over all vote was 85 in favor, just 13 opposed.  U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) also voted for this atrocity.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) spoke out in opposition to the measure, saying in an official statement that this political correct bill “is being used as a vehicle to further agendas that have nothing to do with actually defending America. Despite the many laudable objectives in this bill, I could not in good conscience vote to draft our daughters into the military, sending them off to war and forcing them into combat.”

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (S. 2943), if passed by the U.S. House and signed into law by President Barack Obama, would require:

(1)  The duty to register imposed on male citizens and persons residing in the United States by subsection (a) shall apply to female citizens of the United States and female persons residing in the United States who attain the age of 18 years on or after January 1, 2018.

(2)  The responsibilities and rights of female registrants under this Act shall be the responsibilities and rights of male registrants under this Act, and shall be subject to such terms, conditions, and limitations as are applicable under the provisions of this Act to similarly situated male registrants.

(3)  Any reference in this Act to a registrant or other person subject to the duties, responsibilities, and rights of a registrant under this Act shall be deemed to refer to female citizens of the United States and female persons residing in the United States registering pursuant to this subsection.

The bill now heads over to the U.S. House.

Mainstream Media are master stagers, adept at slick productions edited to create the cultural scene, the public perception of their desiring.

In the world of stratospheric real estate, stagers move in furnishings and artwork, paint, light candles, bake bread or cookies — everything possible to touch the emotions of potential buyers and elicit a sale.

In the world of what poses as journalism, the authors and pundits selectively edit and present the news through the Leftist lens, such that Americans at large consume not facts, but ideologies.

If you had to ask John Doe on the street, “What issues are most important to Millennials?” their answers based on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, etc., would most likely be climate change, “choice,” LGBT and marriage equality issues, and marijuana legalization. Alas, John D. would be wrong.

Oh, Obama and his cohorts keep lambasting us with the “Climate Change is the biggest threat to mankind!” rhetoric.

Modern day climate and ecology tyrants exemplify Romans 1:

²⁵ They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

The President is unable to utter the words “radical Islamic terrorism” in the same sentence and in that order. And yet, our POTUS recites ad nauseam the LGBTQ mantra of Pride! Does Pres. Obama realize his words confirm more verses in Romans 1?

²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵ They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

²⁸ Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

²⁹ They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹ they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.

President Obama proclaims “Islam is a religion of peace!” and the Islamic call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

The Left’s secular, Socialist indoctrination of America and her youth marches on, driven by education elites and the media.

And yet, despite this ever present Climate and Sexual Perversion Propaganda, millennials march to a slightly different beat.

A recent Ipsos study of 2016 election issue concerns which surveyed “1,141 adults age 18-34 from the continental U.S., Alaska and Hawaii” returned strikingly unexpected results. Ipsos is a global market research company with worldwide headquarters in Paris, France.

Look closely at the chart below which lists the “most important issues for the next President of the United States to prioritize”:

Notice that Climate Change is number 9, Abortion number 13, Marijuana number 12 and LGBTQ issues number 13.

Those results are slightly heartening and would be more so were it not for MSM’s wholesale silence on the survey. All we hear in the ethernet and on broadcast news are the proverbial crickets of verboten knowledge.

Also of note, on page six of the report, 57 percent of the respondents either strongly or somewhat agree that “Terrorism fueled by religious extremism is a bigger threat than gun violence” and 58 percent either strongly or somewhat agree that “The government should protect the Second Amendment right of all Americans to buy guns if they want to.”

What this report and these results mean is there is hope!

With all of The Left’s high-powered marketing, glitzy Hollywood production, and monopoly of the broadcast news and education establishment, they still have not completely eradicated independent thought and values. Millennials do not quite yet walk in Progressive lockstep.

Conservatives and Christians, for the most part, are about 100 years late to the culture war Progressives (née Socialists/Marxists) have been waging via every possible societal gatekeeper.

What now?

Time to wake up. Time for each and every Conservative, every Bible-believing Christian to make haste and dive headlong into the fray. There are hearts and souls, and ultimately the future of our beloved nation in the balance.

We must use our time and our money to reach those whose hearts have not yet hardened to the truth of Psalm 32:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.

We must remind each American of the precepts of the Founders, which were the precepts of the Bible. We must implement superior marketing to message the sanctity of life and natural marriage, and every other value we hold dear.

Conservatism is no fad, no flash in the pan. It is a time-tested worldview tempered by biblical principles, principles which, when acted upon result in life and abundant life for individuals, families, and nations.

Mainstream Media has staged its Progressive Production; time for Conservatives to shatter that evil facade and deliver the truth that could rescue not only Millennials, but all of America.

Follow IFI on Social Media!

Be sure to check us out on social media for other great articles, quips, quotes, pictures, memes, events and updates.

Like us on Facebook HERE.
Subscribe to us on YouTube HERE!
Follow us on Twitter @ProFamilyIFI

Summer is the season during which countless parents take their children to visit our magnificent national parks. And this is a special year for our National Park Service in that August 25 marks the 100^th anniversary of the day President Woodrow Wilson signed the bill that officially recognized the National Park Service.

During this centennial year, President Barack Obama has decided that what the world needs now is a national park dedicated to sexual deviance. In his unbiblical belief that homoeroticism is something to be publicly celebrated, on June 24 President Obama proclaimed that the 1969 Stonewall riot that took place outside a seedy homosexual bar in NYC and which officially marks the start of the social and political revolution to normalize sexual deviance should be commemorated:

“I’m designating the Stonewall National Monument as the newest addition to America’s National Park System….I believe our national parks should reflect the full story of our country, the richness and diversity and uniquely American spirit that has always defined us.”

This proclamation follows as expectedly as dark night follows day from a president who has defaced the White House in the garish and misappropriated colors of the rainbow to honor the destruction of marriage by the five Supreme Court justices. About this defacement, Obama was pleased to say “how good the White House looked in rainbow colors.”

The rainbow, the symbol of God’s promise never to destroy the world for our iniquities, is now the appropriated symbol of the celebration of iniquity. The rainbow has been purloined by the perverse to represent the wholesale rejection of God’s order for maleness, femaleness, sex, and marriage. And our president, who claims to be a follower of Christ, not merely shares in the celebration of wickedness but uses the office established by God-fearing men to promote it.

Does Obama know something St. Paul did not, because while Obama celebrates faux-marriage, the creation of intentionally motherless and fatherless children, and riots in support of body- and soul-destroying sexual acts, St. Paul warns of the eternal consequences of homoeroticism:

“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 1:27).

“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).

Was Obama’s unseemly act a proclamation of social and political liberation from unjust oppression, or was it the ordination of a gnostic/neopagan monument to the unyoking of sex from truth?

“For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man?
If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ”
(Galatians 1:10)

Written by Casey Mattox

Whether you’re a painter, pastor, lawyer, or laborer (pro-life or pro-abortion), you work for Planned Parenthood. A portion of every paycheck goes to the world’s leading abortion business through the federal and state taxes allocated by your elected representatives and the unelected bureaucrats they empower.

For the fiscal year ending in June 2015 (just before the Center for Medical Progress videos were released), over $550 million of your hard-earned tax dollars went to Planned Parenthood.

But the states are taking the lead to end this forced partnership with “Big Abortion” and redirecting those funds to providers that better serve women and families.

Since the authenticated Center for Medical Progress videos were released showing Planned Parenthood officials bartering over the prices of baby body parts, 15 states have taken action to end or limit its taxpayer subsidies.

Here are just a few examples of what state legislatures and governors have done:

• New Hampshire canceled over $600,000 in annual state grants to Planned Parenthood.
• Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas moved to exclude Planned Parenthood from the states’ Medicaid programs “for cause,” citing its waste, abuse and potential fraud and the evidence of violations of the law and ethics demonstrated in the Center for Medical Progress videos.
• Wisconsin and Arizona have slashed the Medicaid reimbursement for certain drugs for entities like Planned Parenthood that receive them at artificially low rates under a federal government program, denying them windfall profits and making those funds available to more women and families.
• Ohio, Florida, Utah and Wisconsin have also eliminated Planned Parenthood from other federal and state grant programs administered by the state.

These actions have potentially eliminated tens of millions in annual taxpayer subsidies going to Planned Parenthood. This represents a small part of the hundreds of millions that it receives, but it is a solid start. And these efforts may at least cut into the $59 million in “excess revenue” the abortion outfit reported last year alone.

States have fought to defund the abortion industry before, but never has the effort to rid American taxpayers of their compelled support of Planned Parenthood been more purposeful and effective than the past several months.

Even Congress has heard the call to stop the flow of taxpayer funds to Planned Parenthood. Just five years ago, an effort to defund Planned Parenthood garnered only 42 votes in the Senate. But moved by the evidence against Planned Parenthood and the fact that other providers are simply better public health options for women and families, in January, Congress actually placed a bill on the president’s desk slashing Planned Parenthood’s access to our tax dollars.

The bill wasn’t perfect, and it was of course vetoed by President Barack Obama, but the progress is real. A different president, one not beholden to an entity that alone has spent tens of millions of dollars to elect him and others who will defend their access to the public trough, would make the difference.

But just as the states are not waiting on Congress to pass laws limiting abortions after five months, when the unborn child can feel pain, they are also not content to wait on Congress to finally stop their citizens’ tax dollars from going to the abortion industry. Governors and state legislators have worked to redirect our tax dollars away from the abortion industry before, but in the last 10 months they have shown a new leadership that should encourage pro-lifers and any advocate of federalism.

No one ever said that eliminating taxpayer subsidies to the abortion market leader and a key political friend to Democratic candidates would be easy. Planned Parenthood has sued several states, and the ultimate success of some states in defunding it may rest on the election of a pro-life president who will support their authority to make their own decisions about their state Medicaid programs.

But the results of the last 10 months should give us hope that this is a fight we can win. We don’t have to keep sending our hard-earned tax dollars to support a billion dollar abortion business. And the leaders in that fight are outside the beltway.

This article was originally published at DailySignal.com.