Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/audio_Language-Rules-Article.mp3

Womaniacal House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—another Democrat leader with compromised cognitive abilities and no moral principles—has womanaged to womangle her first day of the new congressional session.

She womandated that in order to make the U.S. House of Representatives Code of Official Conduct more inclusive, it will henceforth exclude references to the following: fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, husbands, wives, fathers-in-law, mothers-in-law, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, stepfathers, stepmothers, stepsons, stepdaughters, stepbrothers, stepsisters, half -brothers, half-sisters, grandsons, or granddaughters, as well as all pronouns that correspond to immutable biological sex, like he, she, his, hers, him, her, himself, and herself.

Pelosi calls these changes “visionary.” Methinks she is a visionary womanqué.

No matter if all the persons affected by the banning of these words identify as husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons, or daughters. No matter if central to their authentic lives and happiness are their identities as constituted by and inseparable from their immutable biological sex. To Big Brother Sibling and his small-minded, power-ravenous Sister Sibling, Nancy Pelosi, using Big Government to eradicate public recognition of sexual dimorphism is all that matters.

Democrat science-deniers thrive on cancelling words, ideas, speech, and religious liberty (not to mention powerless humans in their mothers’ wombs). If satiating the lunatic “trans” cult, homosexual activists, and radical feminists gains science- and morality-denying Dems more power, who cares about language, ideas, liberty, or truth.

In my mind’s ear, I hear some Christians tsk-tsking my description of the “trans” cult as lunatic.  Those Christians have yet to explain how Christians can heed C.S. Lewis’ admonition to train up our children to feel hatred for ideas and actions that are worthy of hatred without using harsh language to describe evil. To use scriptural language, Nancy Pelosi and everyone else who accommodates the diktats of “trans” cultists, homosexual activists, and radical feminists are vipers.

I can hear some other conservatives—also known as living, marinating frogs—dismissing concerns and warnings about the scorched earth devastation of feminism, homonormativity, and “trans”-cultism, all of which conspire to undermine public recognition and respect for God’s created order.

These are the same conservatives who now use the word “gay” instead of homosexual.

These are the same conservatives who failed to object when pro-homosexual resources were introduced to their children in government schools through sex ed, health classes, theater classes, English classes, and social studies classes.

These are the same conservatives who attend same-sex faux weddings and call their actions “loving.”

These are the same conservatives who welcome homosexual activists into the Big Circus Tent of the Republican Party—homosexual activists who are committed to killing the party from within like a coronavirus.

These are the same conservatives who do nothing when their local public libraries invite drag queens—that is, perverted adult men—to read stories to toddlers.

These are the same conservatives who know and care little that there is a public health crisis among adolescent girls and young women whose hearts and minds are being poisoned by the social contagion of “trans”-cultism.

And these are the same conservatives who have little understanding of the enormity of the threat posed to our essential First Amendment rights by the Equality Act.

Just after Pelosi announced the exclusion of “gendered” language from the House Code of Official Conduct, U.S. womentally unhinged Representative Emmanuel Cleaver opened the 117^th Session of Congress with a prayer that ended with these words:

We ask it in the name of the monotheistic God, Brahma, and ‘God’ known by many names by many different faiths. Amen and awoman.

Yes, a former pastor with a Master of Divinity degree actually said those embarrassing words.

Cleaver is apparently so steeped in intersectional identity politics and beholden to the culturally powerful groups that seek to blur the lines between sexes, he ignored that “amen” is not a gendered word. He’s willing to trade the Word of God–whom he claims to serve–for a mess of rancid political pottage.

If we’re going to invent neologisms in a futile attempt to recreate a world in the image of intersectionalist ideologues, I’ve got some:

• Womendicants: women who live off the government
• Womendacious: women who lie
• Womengelian: women who order the deaths of or experimentation on their children

Pastor and theologian Douglas Wilson tweeted a response to Cleaver’s peculiar prayer closing that aptly describes how many feel on the first week of the new congressional session:

The opening prayer for the 117^th Congress concluded with “amen” and “awomen,” and I regret to inform you that all my patience with the 117^th Congress, at the conclusion of their opening prayer, was exhausted.

I suspect many right-thinking Americans are also feeling something more intense than exhaustion.

There’s another possibility: Maybe Cleaver wasn’t saying “amen” as in “so be it.” Maybe he was using the prefix “a” attached to men and women, meaning “not men” and “not women.” Yeah, that makes more sense.

Unless there’s a revival, America is doomed by the rebellion, cowardice, and ignorance of leaders elected by rebellious, cowardly, and ignorant people.

“It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all… a heretical thought… should be literally unthinkable. … 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. … [T]he special function of certain Newspeak words. … was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them.” George Orwell, 1984

“For whatever other reasons the language rules may have been devised, they proved of enormous help in the maintenance of order and sanity in the various widely diversified services whose cooperation was essential in this matter.” Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil

We take very seriously the trust you place in Illinois Family Institute when you send a gift.
We understand that we are accountable before you and God to honor your trust. 

IFI is supported by voluntary donations from good people like you.

Dating back to 2016, I have been urging Christian conservatives and other people of conscience to distinguish between the important affirmation that black lives do matter and the BLM movement.

The statement that “black lives matter” should be shouted loudly and clearly, since through much of our history, black Americans have felt that their lives did not matter to white Americans.

As for the BLM movement, it should be exposed for what it is. As I tweeted on July 6:

Here’s what we know about the BLM movement, especially when we dig a little deeper into their “What We Believe” statement.

When you start to connect the dots, you’ll understand why I described BLM as “dangerous” and “anti-Christian.” In fact, at the end of this article, I’ll connect the BLM movement with the J word – as in Jezebel. (Do I have your attention?)

BLM was founded by three black women: Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi.

The first two identify as queer and the third as “a transnational feminist.”

Speaking of Cullors, a website celebrating “lesbians who tech” states that, “When Patrisse was 16-years-old she came out as queer and moved out of her home in the Valley.”

The official BLM site describes Garza as a “queer Black woman” who states that “we must view this epidemic through a lens of race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”

That’s why a June 21, 2020 article on ABC news declared that, “From the start, the founders of Black Lives Matter have always put LGBTQ voices at the center of the conversation. The movement was founded by three Black women, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi, two of whom identify as queer.”

On a certain level, reading through the official BLM statement, being queer is as much of an issue for the movement as being black.

Accordingly, there are multiple references to “trans,” as highlighted here: “We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.

“We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.”

Even more forthrightly, the statement reads, “We foster a queer-affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).”

Thus, the only references to heterosexuality are negative, as in “cisgender privilege” and “heteronormative thinking,” meaning the assumption that heterosexuality is the norm.

So, BLM is not just fighting against white privilege but also heterosexual privilege. Make no mistake about it.

That’s why the statement also goes out of its way to include people of “actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression.” The leaders have made themselves abundantly clear.

But there’s more, and this has often been missed in commentary on BLM beliefs.

While there are references to “mothers” and “parents” in their statement, there is not one single reference to fathers. Not one. (Contrast this with the multiple references to queer and trans and gender identity, etc).

As for mention of “men” or the idea of a male-led household, these are only found in totally negative contexts.

Specifically, “We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered” (my emphasis). Oh, those terrible, evil men.

And this: “We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work ‘double shifts’ so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work” (again, my emphasis).

Yes, that oppressive, husband-wife, male-female union, that outdated, outmoded patriarchal dinosaur. It must be dismantled. (And note the assumption that if something is “patriarchal” it is unfair to women. A truly fair relationship would have the husband home with the kids while the wife is out doing “public justice work”).

This is the language of radical feminism in unabashed, undisguised form. This too is part of the queer, trans-affirming spirit.

As for the third founder, Opal Tometi, she is also described as “a student of liberation theology.” And there is now the widely circulated quote from Cullors that she and Garza “are trained Marxists.”

As for the connection between liberation theology and Marxism, especially in this context, Prof. Anthony Bradley, himself black, has pointed out that, “Black Liberation Is Marxist Liberation.”

So, without question, the official BLM movement is Marxist-based, queer-affirming, trans-activist, traditional-marriage degrading, radical-feminist promoting and more. In a certain sense, it is fatherless as well.

That’s why I said that “the BLM organization is dangerous, anti-Christian, and should be avoided.”

Now, let’s also remember that Cullors is on record saying that their goal is to remove Trump from office: “Trump not only needs to not be in office in November, but he should resign now. Trump needs to be out of office. He is not fit for office. And so, what we are going to push for is a move to get Trump out.”

And this leads me to one last important point. When you connect all the dots, the spirit of the official BLM movement is downright Jezebelic, thus in direct conflict with the Alpha Male Trump.

This article originally posted at Townhall.com

I and others have been shouting from our virtual rooftops for over a decade that there is no greater threat to First Amendment protections than that posed by the subversive “LGBTQ” movement. Can conservatives not yet see the end of the short pier toward which GOP leaders have long been pushing them? Really? (Im)moderate Republicans, Libertarian-leaning Republicans, Republicans with dollar signs rather than Scripture reflected in their myopic eyes have been pushing conservatives toward the end of the short pier, hoping that either spines will crumble or conservatives will tumble into the dark waters. Supremacist Court Justice/lawmaker Neil-the-Usurper-Gorsuch just gave conservatives a huge shove toward the watery abyss.

read more