Those with ears to hear fear it’s coming. They fear the impending death of FOX News as a voice for conservatism. They see FOX gasping for air in its miasmic studio spaces, but they fear too little life-sustaining air remains. Retaining conservative views on defense and fiscal policy cannot sustain either the health of a political party or the soundness of political punditry.

Although there have long been troubling signs, it was first Bret Baier’s and then Tucker Carlson’s references to objectively, immutably male persons by female pronouns that signaled that perhaps FOX News is too far gone. What some argue is a triviality—that is, grammatically incorrect pronoun use—is in reality momentous. If FOX News show anchors and commentators start using politically correct, grammatically incorrect pronouns it will signal that they have lost either their moral compasses or their countercultural courage or both. And it has been these values that enabled FOX News to thrive in the midst of cultural collapse.

For quite some time, FOX political commentators have either studiously avoided addressing matters related to homosexuality or “trans”-cultism or have addressed them in a pallid, opinion-free way that thinly cloaks itself in the pseudo-nobility of “neutrality.” But using female pronouns to refer to objectively male persons is a leap down from impartiality into the pit of “progressive” partisanship. It signals a cowardly capitulation to the dogmatic rhetorical diktats of sexuality anarchists.

Do Carlson and Baier rationalize their emasculated acquiescence by telling themselves that pronouns are only insignificant parts of speech or that referring to men who pretend to be women by opposite-sex pronouns is a matter of compassion or civility? Or in the privacy of their homes, do they confess to their wives that the motive for their complicity in rhetorical fraud is their all too human but still indefensible desire to keep their well-paying jobs? Is it cravenness, foolishness, or venality that impels their capitulation?

While florists, bakers, photographers, and calligraphers with far less resources risk everything in the service of truth, will Baier and Carlson sell their souls for a mess of pottage? Okay, maybe not their souls, but surely their integrity.

When will conservatives understand what Leftists understand, which is that language matters? Have conservatives not read George Orwell? Orwell warned against what he deemed Newspeak, which is exactly what politically-correct pronouns for biological sex-rejecting persons constitute:

Newspeak was the official language of Oceania, and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of IngSoc, or English Socialism….

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

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

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

Integrity and wisdom are precious commodities these days, certainly not found often on television—not even on FOX News. The situation is going to get only worse now that Rupert Murdoch’s sons Lachlan and James have taken over the reins. Sure, they’re mopping out the lecherous serial harassers of women, but they’re cleaning house with dirty water. Swish, out goes boorishness. Back-swish, in comes Newspeak.

In a profile of the Murdoch men, the New York Times reported that last fall at FOX broadcast network, “James and Lachlan introduced additional benefits, including…vastly enhanced reproductive coverage for women and ‘expanded coverage for our transgender colleagues.’” Do the Murdoch brothers’ efforts to facilitate their colleagues’ quest to conceal their actual sex end with medical insurance or do their efforts include requiring Newspeak at FOX News?

The New York Times piece explains that “James and his progressive-minded wife, Kathryn, have long been embarrassed by certain elements of Fox News.” Maybe their embarrassment, informed by “progressivism” as it appears it to be, will accelerate the pace of Leftward-leaning changes already taking root at FOX:

“The brothers have even shaken up 21st Century Fox’s profile in Washington, replacing their father’s Republican lobbying chief with a Democratic one. One Hollywood friend equated their mind-set to moving into an outdated house and looking for wood rot.”

I’m all for getting rid of wood rot, but I suspect the Murdoch boys have redefined “rot.” Good things like recognizing the human species as sexually binary and marriage as an intrinsically sexually complementary institution are likely now considered wood rot.

In addition to Baier’s and Carlson’s troubling  use of Newspeak, there are the gaseous exhalations of homosexual FOX host Shepard Smith who never misses an opportunity to make snide remarks about conservative beliefs on homosexuality, thereby poisoning his reporting. While not as overtly and relentlessly in the tank for homoeroticism as Smith, other former and current FOX stars, including Megyn Kelly, Bill O’Reilly, Eric Bolling, Dana Perino, Greg Gutfeld, and Kimberley Guilfoyle, have expressed their support for the legal recognition of homoerotic unions as “marriages.” And those whom the public suspects still hold conservative views on matters related to homosexuality or gender dysphoria, like Sean Hannity, rarely address the issues and almost never offer substantive and hearty defenses of conservative positions as they do on fiscal or defense issues.

All is not yet lost, however. On Monday night, Carlson managed to avoid using female pronouns when talking about his guest “Caitlyn” Jenner. And Carlson did press Jenner—albeit just a little with his pinky finger—asking him, “Do you think it’s possible for people of good will, people of faith, people of generous spirits to be confused at least, or baffled and say ‘I’m not exactly sure I understand this’ and still be good people?”

But Carlson’s question is problematic in that it implies that opposition to “trans”-cultic assumptions is driven by confusion or bafflement rather than truth. And Carlson never confronted “trans”-activist Jenner the way he confronts other guests who hold inane views. For example, why didn’t he ask Jenner, who now has a spanking new birth certificate that identifies his gender at birth as female, if he should relinquish his Olympic decathlon gold medal since he claims he has always been female. Either his birth certificate is fraudulent or his Olympic participation as a male was. Both cannot be true.

Hope springs eternal that FOX will one day soon hire some true conservative commentators who are smart, wise, and courageous enough to offer full-bodied, unashamed, articulate, intelligent defenses of conservative positions on issues related to homosexuality and who will invite guests with more to offer than Jenner–people like Ryan Anderson, Michael L. Brown, Anthony Esolen, Robert George, Jennifer Roback  Morse, and Doug Wilson.  Boy oh boy would I like to see those interviews. They would provide the fresh air FOX needs and its viewers deserve.

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

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

Click HERE to donate to IFI

In October 2014, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) put Dr. Benjamin Carson on its “Extremist Watch List.” Why? Because Dr. Carson holds the traditional, historical, and true belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and has the courage to express that belief.

Who else is on this “Extremist Watch List”? In addition to a host of unsavory Neo-Nazis, KKK members, and skinheads, the SPLC lists the following as “extremists”:

• Dr. Michael Brown, Bible scholar, author, and radio host
• Cliff Kincaid, director of Accuracy in Media
• Charles Murray, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of The Bell Curve and Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010
• Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council

The depth of the ignorance and malignity of the SPLC’s leaders is exposed through their defamation of a man of such unquestioned integrity as Dr. Carson.

After being exposed by Bill O’Reilly on his Fox News Channel program this week (video here), and receiving “intense criticism” from the public, the far Left SPLC decided to reverse their decision and issue an apology to Dr. Carson—well, an apology of sorts. You know, the sort that’s not really an apology. Here’s an excerpt from their deeply contrite apology:

In October 2014, we posted an “Extremist File” of Dr. Ben Carson. This week, as we’ve come under intense criticism for doing so, we’ve reviewed our profile and have concluded that it did not meet our standards, so we have taken it down and apologize to Dr. Carson for having posted it. 

We’ve also come to the conclusion that the question of whether a better-researched profile of Dr. Carson should or should not be included in our “Extremist Files” is taking attention from the fact that Dr. Carson has, in fact, made a number of statements that express views that we believe most people would conclude are extreme….We laud Dr. Carson for his many contributions to medicine and his philanthropic work, and we, like so many others, are inspired by his personal story. Nevertheless…because Dr. Carson is such a prominent person, we believe that his views should be closely examined.

I wouldn’t want to go so far as to claim that the SPLC is a racist organization, but we can’t help but wonder if Dr. Carson’s skin color may have factored into the SPLC’s decision to remove him from their fear-mongering, money-making “Extremist Watch List” while leaving Dr. Brown, Cliff Kincaid, Charles Murray, and Tony Perkins on the list.

One brief word about “extremism”: “Extremist” is a free-floating term with no fixed meaning relative to truth or goodness. Being an “extremist” can be either good or bad depending on the activity or belief from which one has become distanced. In the midst of a culture so corrupt and decadent that citizens cheer when men legally wed men and women flock to a movie that extols the pleasures of sadomasochistic sex, we should thank God that for our “extremist” status.

If having a public forum and expressing the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman warrant inclusion on a list of hateful extremists, then the SPLC must be either short-staffed, which seems unlikely given the millions of dollars they suck from a gullible public, or they’re slackers.

There are countless Jews and Christians from Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant faith traditions who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. And many of these men and women have access to public forums in which they express their beliefs. They express their beliefs in college, university, and seminary classrooms; podcasts; sermons; scholarly journals, magazines; newspapers; websites; speaking engagements; and news programs. So, why are they not on the ethically impoverished Southern Poverty Law Center’s “extremist” list?

Perhaps the reasons for the SPLC’s oddly truncated list are twofold:

1.) A common tactic of homosexual activists is to exploit the natural sheep-like human tendency to desire membership in the cool group and the natural human tendency to avoid pain and conflict. The Left maligns leaders who tell the truth about homoeroticism so that others who also hold these same true beliefs will not want to be associated with them. The Left thereby effectively marginalizes truth-tellers.

2.) The SPLC leaders surely know that if they included every public person who affirms the truth that marriage has a nature central to which is sexual complementarity, the SPLC would discredit itself—further.

We should learn three lessons from this newest unforced error from the SPLC.

Christians need to speak the truth in love about homosexuality and gender confusion with the perseverance and boldness that the Left speaks lies.

Second, Christians need to publicly come alongside those who are speaking the truth about homosexuality, gender confusion, marriage, and children’s rights.

Finally, Christians need to be willing to be persecuted for expressing biblical truth—which is to say, truth—about homosexuality and gender confusion.

Temporal and eternal lives are at stake.

As part of a national journalism conference on Tuesday, August 20, America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI), a public policy organization, is officially releasing a new report on radical changes at Fox News that should cause great concern to pro-family conservatives.

“Pushing Sean Hannity out of the 9:00 p.m. slot, to make way for pro-homosexual advocate Megyn Kelly, is another sign of the channel’s left-ward drift and decline,” said ASI President Cliff Kincaid, a veteran journalist and media critic. 

Mocking the Fox motto of “Fair, Balanced and Unafraid,” the new report is titled, “Unfair, Unbalanced and Afraid: Fox News’ Growing Pro-Homosexual Bias and the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association.” It is available in advance at the ASI website www.usasurvival.org. 

The 40,000-word report, written by former reporter and social activist Peter LaBarbara, examines how journalism today, even at Fox News, “has become pro-homosexual propaganda, with many media stories appearing as if they were written by LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) activists.” Like other major media, the report notes, Fox News through its parent company, News Corporation, is a long-time funder of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA). LaBarbera runs the Americans for Truth about Homosexuality group. 

The cover of the report features a photo of Fox News star and afternoon host Megyn Kelly posing for a photo at the 2010 NLGJA fund-raiser in New York City. Every year, Fox News violates basic journalistic ethics by joining other major media as a corporate sponsor of the NLGJA. The report cites documentary evidence that the coverage of homosexuality by Fox News is tilted in a left-wing direction, and that the channel has failed its conservative viewers. When Kincaid and LaBarbara sent a letter to Fox chief Roger Ailes earlier this year asking for a meeting on the subject, they were rebuffed. 

At the August 20 conference, ASI President Kincaid will himself narrate a PowerPoint presentation on “The Rise and Fall of Fox News,” focusing on how the channel has gradually abandoned its viewer base and why conservatives should look elsewhere for news and information. Acknowledging that the channel began and succeeded as a platform for conservative voices ignored by the major media, Kincaid will nevertheless explain why he is troubled by a series of liberal hires at the channel and a new book that documents Ailes’ relationships with civil rights agitators Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. He will also discuss the real reason why Glenn Beck was fired from the channel. To cover or attend the conference, which is being held at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., please contact Phil Kent at (404) 226-3549 and /or philkent@philkent.com. 

While examining how various Fox News personalities have approached the homosexual issue, the new ASI report looks closely at Kelly, a so-called “rising star” at the channel who has a history of trying to “marginalize and discredit religious conservatives.” Sean Hannity currently hosts the show during the 9:00 p.m. time period that Kelly is reportedly taking over. 

One of the examples cited is how Kelly emerged as a “Transgender Advocate” for “Chaz” Bono, after the former child actor switched genders from female to male. Kelly was “arrogant and belligerent” in a 2011 interview with Dr. Keith Ablow, in response to his excellent FoxNews.com article urging parents not to let their impressionable children watch “Chaz” Bono on “Dancing with the Stars.” Kelly’s hostile interview with Dr. Ablow reached a low point when she accused him of “adding to the hate” against transgenders. 

The report adds, “Viewers should remember that it was Kelly… who set up Bill O’Reilly’s ‘Thump the Bible’ hubbub by stating that in her prior interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, she did not hear any ‘compelling’ arguments against same-sex ‘marriage.’ This led O’Reilly to enthusiastically agree and make his famous remark (which many Christians and conservatives found pejorative).” 

“So-called ‘Bible thumpers’ and other Christians and conservatives who have been offended by Fox News should get the message,” says Kincaid. “This is a channel that has lost its way and that viewers should lose their way to on the remote control.”

I often find the statements or actions of Illinois politicians embarrassing or worse. Watching U.S. Senator Dick Durbin’s interview with Bret Baier was one of those occasions. I cannot for the life of me understand why Illinoisans continue year after year to vote for men like Dick Durbin–particularly with Illinois in a state of perpetual decline.

The unflappable, congenial, and always civil Bret Baier (no Rachel Maddow or Bill O’Reilly here) tried indefatigably to get  Durbin to answer a simple question regarding the noticeable deletion of the word “God” from the 2012 Democratic platform. The phrase “God-given potential” appeared in the 2008 platform but was deleted from this year’s platform. Baier attempted multiple times to ask the obvious and reasonable question: “Why?” Durbin’s response was defensive, combative, rude, and evasive. The gentleman “doth protest too much, methinks.”

Below is a transcription of their exchange, which you can also watch here:

Baier: God was taken out of the platform, why do that?

Durbin: Well, I can just basically tell you if the narrative that is being presented on your station, and through your channel and your network is the Democrats are godless people, they ought to know better. God is not a franchise of the Republican Party

Baier: No, no, but…

Durbin: Those of us who believe in God and those of us who have dedicated our lives to helping others in the name of God don’t want to take a second seat to anyone who is suggesting that one word out of the platform means the Democrats across America are godless. Come on, Bret.

Baier: No, no, no – I don’t think that’s what’s being said. We’re reporting what’s in the platform. In 2008, God was mentioned once; in 2004, it was mentioned seven times; in 2000 it was mentioned four times. So, it’s just a question…

Durbin: So, what’s your point?

Baier: The question is, why take it out this time?

Durbin: What I’m basically saying to you is if you’re trying to draw some conclusion that the Democrats are godless, present your evidence, present your evidence.

Baier: I’m not trying to draw any conclusion. I’m just asking the question: why was the word taken out?

Durbin: I’m just telling you, you are carping on a trifle. We know that both parties are devoted to this country; both parties are God-fearing parties. Let’s get on with the agenda about creating jobs in America, about justice in this country.

Baier: And we’re going to talk about that in a second. We’re talking about the platform here, and there are two changes that we just noted, one is that God was taken out from 2008 to 2012 and two, that Jerusalem was not mentioned. I’m not drawing conclusions; I’m just asking why these changes were made.

Durbin: Bret, let me just say, I chaired the platform committee for two Democratic conventions. We produced the most unread document in the history of American politics, to suggest that this document and the insertion of two words here and one word there, now defines politics in America suggests to me that you’re not focusing on the real issues that Americans care about.

Baier: But Senator, you know…

Durbin: They want the American people to get back to work.

Baier: I understand that…

Durbin: We want to continue to create jobs.

Baier: Let’s talk about that in one second. You know that Democrats in Tampa talked about the Republican platform and what was and was not in there. So, when I’m asking you about these two changes and two words, I’m just asking why. I’m not drawing conclusions.

Durbin: I’m telling you, your conclusions are wrong, if you’re drawing them.

So, Durbin conceded that Baier may not have been drawing conclusions, but Durbin knows that if Baier had been drawing conclusions, he, Durbin, knew what they were and that they were wrong. Where is Professor Irwin Corey when we need him?

Durbin appears to have the inside scoop on the numbers of God-fearing people versus atheists in the two parties. Maybe he’s right. Maybe the number of God-fearing people in the two parties is exactly the same. If so, that makes the deletion of the one reference to God from the Democratic platform all the more perplexing.

Later Baier asked Charles Krauthammer about the deletion of the reference to God (a mere “trifle” to Durbin), which has even some moderate Democrats concerned. Krauthammer responded:

Platforms don’t really tell you what’s going to happen. But when you compare today with what people used to believe, used to say, and used to proclaim, and you see these glaring changes, you know that something has changed in the party. This is one place that Obama has led from in front and not from behind, moving the party—not just himself. And that, I think, is extremely significant.

Ditto.

During the Roman Empires secularist era those who acknowledged the deity of Christ were frequently fed to the lions to entertain for lack of a better word the progressive elites of the day. Theres little doubt that if many of todays secular-progressives (more accurately: moonbat liberals) had their way, Caesar Obama would call out the lions once again.

Nothing makes the left lose its collective noodle like an open proclamation of Christian faith. You don’t see it when Muslims proselytize in government schools; the ACLU doesn’t sue when Wiccans share their witchy ways; militant gay activists don’t picket Buddhist temples with bullhorns while inhabitants grasp at Zen. No, theres something about Christianity that just drives em nuts. Always has. Always will.

Case in point: Recently, on two separate occasions, Fox News veteran Brit Hume both publicly pronounced his own faith in Jesus Christ and boldly suggested that Tiger Woods might find forgiveness and redemption for his serial philandering should he turn to the Christian faith.

Hume first offered Tiger the advice on Fox News Sunday and then reiterated his sage, though decidedly non-PC council on The OReilly Factor the following night. When asked by host Bill O’Reilly what kind of response he’d received for his comments, Hume replied, in part: Its always been a puzzling thing to me. The Bible even speaks of it. You speak the name Jesus Christ and all hell breaks loose.

Yes indeed.

After Hume made his comments, and as if on cue (Lord forgive them for not knowing what they do or why they do it) liberals went apoplectic. Heres a small sampling:

As reported by CNSNews.com: Tom Shales, media critic for the Washington Post, in a Tuesday column, demanded that Hume apologize and called his Christian remarks even only a few days into January, as one of the most ridiculous of the year.

MSNBCs reliably raspy Keith Olbermann accused Hume of attempting to threaten Tiger Woods into converting to Christianity and demanded that his Fox News ratings superior keep religious advocacy out of public life (back in the closet, Brit old boy).

Olblubberman then compared Hume to a terrorist, suggesting that the worst example of this kind of proselytizing are jihadists. Finally, he betrayed the lefts typical anti-Christian bigotry, suggesting that Jesus may have been a homosexual and wondering aloud: WWJDIHS: What would Jesus do if hes straight?

While the mainstream media’s rage was clumsily managed (or masked), unbridled hate boiled over in the left-wing blogosphere.

On the sexual anarchist site, JoeMyGod, poster QScribe suggested that Brit Humes deceased son had been gay and viciously accused Hume of being responsible for the young mans suicide: Brit Hume still hasn’t repented for trashing his gay son and driving him to suicide. When I want moral guidance from a pig like that, I’ll be sure to ask. Until then, he really ought to STFU. (Hume has publicly shared that his sons heartbreaking suicide played a large role in his acceptance of Christ.)

The next commenter went so far as to cruelly imply that Hume had sexually molested his own child and further mocked the tragic suicide, writing: Dead victims don’t tell on their molesters.

Commenting on the Huffington Post, Kandaher bypassed Hume altogether and aimed his vitriol directly at his Creator: anyone (sic) watched The passion of Christ? I thoruhgly (sic) enjoyed it. Nothing like watching this bloke getting beaten up! He deserved what he got and more!

You get the idea.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that I very much enjoy watching liberals go goofy when the light of truth pierces that shadowy void called moral relativism. When the lefts religion of choice secular-humanism is challenged through exposure to the gospel message, they almost universally and instinctively react with such visceral, knee-jerk spasms. You can set your clock to it.

But believe it or not, there’s actually something rather delightful about such hateful lashing about. These poor souls to be pitied and prayed for fail to realize that, manifest within their own unwittingly bizarre behavior, is certain affirmation of the very words of Christ on the subject.

Jesus addressed this peculiar and deeply spiritual phenomenon on more than one occasion over two thousand years ago. In John 15:18-20 (NIV), for instance, He reminds His followers: If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

Now, I’m real sorry that most progressives and other non-believers feel that Christianity is deficiently tolerant or inclusive of various man-made religions and lifestyle choices. But it’s just not our call. Christ Himself reveals over and again that the pathway to heaven is a very narrow one, requiring membership in a rather exclusive club– a club wherein belief in Him and repentance from sin are the only membership requirements.

Christ said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) Note that, rather conspicuously, He did not say: “No one comes to the Father except through me, the Buddha, Muhammad, Ganesh, and on Tuesdays L. Ron Hubbard.”

But lest you have any doubt, consider John 3:36, which warns every man, woman and child on earth past, present and future: “Whoever believes in the Son [Jesus] has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for Gods wrath remains on him.”

So, Brit Hume had it right, didn’t he? I mean, it is kind of an all or nothing proposition, isn’t it?

As my favorite author and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis famously pointed out in his blockbuster book Mere Christianity, Christ could only have been one of three things: A lunatic, a liar, or, as Jesus oft claimed and as billions have believed, the sovereign Lord and Creator of the universe.

Noted Lewis:

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. –C.S. Lewis

So, what does this all mean? Well, and please take this in the spirit (little ‘s’ intended): Brit Hume’s woolly, wily, wandering critics really ought to just un-knot their knickers; mudra, mantra or something; and seriously reflect upon the man’s words and heart.

Perhaps they should (being all tolerant, diverse and whatnot) consider, if only for a moment, the very Spirit (big ‘S’) from which came those words and were formed that heart.

In the meantime, to Mr. Hume: Well done, good and faithful servant.