Chicago Sun-Times education reporter Nader Issa offers a classic example of biased opinion writing masquerading as objective reporting in his “news” narratives about a recent controversy in the Chicago suburb of Downers Grove over an obscene “graphic memoir.” The memoir, titled Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe, may sound familiar to IFI readers. I wrote this about her memoir in early August 2021:

Maia Kobabe, author of Gender Queer: A Memoir, which is carried in high school libraries, tells the peculiar tale of her journey to her “identity” as a genderqueer, asexual woman with a lesbian aunt and a sister who dates a woman who pretends to be a man.

The far-left American Library Association awarded Kobabe an Alex Award for her “graphic” memoir. Her memoir is graphic in both senses of the word. It’s a sexually explicit, 240-page comic book about her journey into sexual confusion and perversion. Kobabe, who uses the “Spivak” pronouns ey/eir/em, also teaches art workshops to middle school children, mostly, she says, “AFAB” girls, which means “assigned female at birth.” Kobabe evidently doesn’t know that children aren’t assigned either a sex or “gender identity” at birth. That’s not a thing obstetricians do. Obstetricians identify the objective sex of babies at birth, a characteristic that never changes.

Public school kerfuffles over Kobabe’s obscene memoir have been justifiably emerging as parents learn that their children’s schools carry it, and one of those kerfuffles took place at a Downers Grove School Board meeting on November 15.

Issa mischaracterizes community criticism of the book as an “attack on literature” about “gender.” What in Issa’s view distinguishes an attack from criticism? And does he think that books about “gender” that don’t include obscene language and images would be under similar “attack”?

Issa continues his sly editorializing. He says the “attack” was perpetrated by “conservative protesters” and “some parents.” Notice the adjective “some,” which suggests that the attack was perpetrated mainly by conservative protestors with just a few parents. Issa, however, doesn’t provide any details. How many of the “conservative protesters” were district taxpayers? How many of the attendees approve of Gender Queer? How many of the attendees who approve of Gender Queer were parents? How many of the attendees who approve of Gender Queer were district taxpayers as opposed to outside leftist agitators? And why does Issa identify opponents of Gender Queer as “conservative” five times in the two articles he has written but doesn’t refer to supporters of the obscene book as “progressive” even once?

Issa then said that “Some critics have claimed children were being exposed to ‘homoerotic’ or ‘pornographic’ language and images.” Issa could have written “some critics oppose children being exposed to homoerotic and pornographic language and images,” but instead he wrote “some critics have claimed children were being exposed to” such language and images. Some have “claimed”? Seriously? Can any honest person deny that Kobabe’s comic book includes homoerotic and pornographic language and images? If images of two women engaged in sex using a dildo is not homoerotic and pornographic, what is?

The paranoid Issa implies critics are part of a vast right-wing conspiracy of “conservative politicians, activists, commentators and small networks of parents” to “denounce and ban progressive teachings in school.” He’s unfortunately right on two things; “progressives” are the peddlers of deviant and graphic sexuality, and they are using public schools to disseminate their sexuality ideology.

If Issa is bothered by the shared goals of conservative politicians, activists, commentators, and small networks of parents who are working toward cleansing schools of controversial leftist materials, he must really be troubled by the shared goals of leftist politicians, activists, academicians, commentators, and large networks of parents to systemically entrench leftist ideas about sexuality (and race) in curricula, resources, professional development, and activities.

Just as Issa referred to “some” parents and said some critics have “claimed” in order to discount the views of critics of Gender Queer, he also referred to “small” networks of parents. Perhaps Issa isn’t aware of the intimidation, bullying, mockery, name-calling, and shaming conservative taxpayers experience when they criticize pro-“LGBTQ” resources used in schools to advance leftist assumptions.

And perhaps Issa didn’t realize that “small networks” of conservative parents are now the minority, and minority voices are all the rage. Maybe Issa is an ideological neanderthal who believes might and numbers make right.

Issa dismisses the offensiveness of Gender Queer by saying it’s only “A few pages that include illustrations of sexual acts” that “have drawn the bulk of the ire.” First, it’s not just obscene drawings about which critics are angry. It’s also obscene language.

Second, how many pages of obscene images would it take to render a novel, memoir, or comic book inappropriate for purchase with taxpayer dollars for minors?

Issa calls attention to the “other students, parents and community members” who see the book as a “vital tool for youth discovering their identity and any efforts to ban it as censorship.”

Please note that Issa did not say a “few other students, parents, and community members” or “some other students, parents and community members” think Gender Queer is a “vital tool.” The diminishing qualifiers “some” and “few” are reserved for conservatives.

Vital? Really? Gender Queer is necessary to the continuation of life? However did kids survive before Kobabe wrote her obscene comic book?

The accusations of censorship and book-banning are curious. When leftist teachers decide that a book’s content is offensive or age-inappropriate and choose not to teach it, it’s called “text-selection.” When conservatives decide that a book is content- or age-inappropriate, leftists call it censorship or book-banning.

I wonder how many books the Downers Grove high schools have that critique leftist gender theory? How many resources do they have about detransitioners? If the answer is none, why would that be?

Issa didn’t mention whether there are any leftist politicians, activists, commentators, and networks of parents who share the goal of keeping Gender Queer and other obscene novels and plays in school libraries.

Issa mentioned that three students spoke in favor of keeping Gender Queer in the library. One student defended it by saying, that “it’s not being forced upon” students. Well, I guess Downers Grove parents should be thankful that teachers aren’t forcing their children to read it, but that comment fails to address the issue. The issue is, should taxpayer subsidized schools purchase and make available to minor students obscene material. Any parents who want their child to read Gender Queer can buy it for them, or kids can buy it themselves.

An 18-year-old student shared that Gender Queer “has scenes in it that are mature and sexual … [but] it’s not like we haven’t been given books with sex in them before.” Ain’t that the truth. School libraries and curricula are chock full of Young Adult (YA) books with graphic sex. Gender Queer is not an isolated library purchase. I would, however, dispute the claim that the obscene scenes in Gender Queer are “mature.” In this context, “mature” is a euphemism for vulgar and obscene.

The 18-year-old, Josiah Poynter, continued: “Inclusion matters to young people. … This is why we must have this book in our school’s library. Inclusion brings an opportunity to grow in a safe environment.”

Poynter is right. Teens and virtually every other human want to feel included, but inclusion must not trump truth. Inclusion must not entail affirming all feelings, beliefs, and acts. Neither inclusion nor the provision of a safe environment should entail the eradication of all moral boundaries.

According to Issa, Superintendent Hank Thiele said Gender Queer “met the district’s requirements for inclusion in its library.” Yikes. Someone better take a close critical look at those requirements.

In Issa’s second article on the Downers Grove dust-up, Democrat U.S. Representative Sean Casten made this asinine comment:

Let’s be really blunt about this. If you are a grown adult and you are walking through a library in an elementary school or high school and having sexual thoughts, you are the problem. It ain’t the book.

Let’s be really blunt about Casten. If he thinks adults who oppose taxpayer-funded schools spending taxpayer funds to make obscene garbage like Gender Queer available to minors are “having sexual thoughts,” then he’s ignorant, creepy, and unfit for office. But this is what we should expect from a man who admires Dan Savage.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Downers-Grove-HS-Obscene-Books-Biased-Journalism.mp3

A National Review article warns of a troubling new collaboration between the European Union (EU)and social media sites including Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Microsoft to police and censor the Internet.

In a document with Orwellian overtones titled “Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online,” the EU announces this unholy alliance. While offering a token commitment to free speech,  assuring protection of even ideas “that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population,” the dominant commitment is to suppressing “hate speech.”

This document makes clear that part of the motivation for global censorship is combatting the use of the Internet to advance terrorism, which is certainly a worthy goal. Unfortunately, the presumptuous “progressive” project to impose leftist moral and political views on the entire world corrupts even worthy goals.

For clarification of what constitutes “illegal hate speech,” this new alliance (henceforth referred to as Big Brother) directs readers to a document titled “Acts Adopted Under Title VI of the EU Treaty” which states that “‘Hatred’ should be understood as referring to hatred based on race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.’” “Hatred should be understood as hatred”? Say what?

The initial structure of the sentence suggests a definition of “hatred” is forthcoming, but instead what follows is a list of conditions (i.e., “race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin”) toward which rhetorical hatred may not be expressed.

But what constitutes hatred? Does criticism of the tenets of Islam—moderate or radical—constitute hatred? Does criticism of Judaism constitute hatred? Do the vulgar rantings of homosexual bigot Dan Savage who referred to orthodox Christians as “bat sh**, a**h*le, dou**ebags” constitute ban-worthy hatred? (Read more about Savage HERE.)

The list of conditions that these Internet language police seek to protect from public expressions of “hatred” is neither exhaustive nor fixed. Big Brother’s anti-First Amendment Code of Conduct concludes with this portentous statement:

To this end, regular meetings will take place and a preliminary assessment will be reported to the High Level Group on Combating Racism, Xenophobia and all forms of intolerance by the end of 2016.

It’s not just undefined “hatred” that is being banned from the Internet. It’s undefined “intolerance” as well. And it’s not just the aforementioned six privileged conditions toward which no Internet-user may express hatred or intolerance, but all other conditions or identity groups toward which “intolerance” could conceivably be directed.

This sentence is poorly constructed in that a grammatically correct reading suggests that it is condemning the forms intolerance could assume. The forms of intolerance could be, for example, hurling epithets at or urging assaults on members of the six groups. But since the phrase “all forms of intolerance” is included in a list that alludes to conditions for which persons may be hated (i.e., racism alludes to race and xenophobia alludes to national origin), it is clear that Big Brother is expanding the groups toward which “intolerance” may not be expressed.

So what might those unnamed groups be? What other groups identifiable by some shared trait might the Internet censors believe must be free from “intolerance”? Perhaps a speech given by the EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality can help us discern the gerrymandered boundaries of Internet safe spaces.

Here is an extended excerpt from a speech delivered last October by EU commissioner Věra Jourová to the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe):

I am pleased to lend my support to this vibrant space for discussion on LGBTI rights in Europe and beyond.

We have recently seen homophobic statements made by a number of political leaders. At the United Nations General Assembly in September, First Vice-President Timmermans made it clear that human rights are for everyone and LGBTI people must not be an exception. I fully endorse his views and will not hesitate to speak out against homophobia and transphobia.

We are also seeing that a narrative undermining LGBTI rights is quietly spreading, often disguised as so-called religious principles. This is unacceptable.

First Vice-President Timmermans and I recently held a conference in Brussels on antisemitism and islamophobia, where we also discussed online hate speech and how to combat it. It is clear that we must fight all hate speech, online and offline, whatever group of society it targets. We will work with internet providers to ensure hate speech is taken off the web as soon as it’s reported.

…

[W]hen it comes to social acceptance of LGBT people in daily life situations, respondents are less accepting. Less than half of respondents (44 percent) say they would be comfortable if their son or daughter had a relationship with a person of the same sex, and only 49 percent are comfortable with gay couples showing affection in public. For transgender people, the levels of acceptance are also low….

What we need is to raise awareness of the benefits of diversity. To this end I will launch an EU-wide campaign to promote LGBTI-equality in 2016….The campaign will be part of Commission’s wider effort and actions I plan to implement in coming years to ensure the rights of LGBTI people and their acceptance are enforced.

…

If we want to move the equality agenda forward, we need a united effort from civil society, businesses, straight allies and national governments.

Lest the naïve among us mistakenly believe that Jourová is solely concerned with existential threats against particular groups, take note of one of her concerns: In this speech in which Jourova condemns hate speech and commits the EU to wiping it off the Internet, she offers parental “discomfort” with a son’s or daughter’s homoerotic relationship as something that society, the world of commerce, and national governments should unite to change.

Another clue as to what constitutes “intolerance” can be found in an EU document titled “Homophobia and Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the EU Member States”:

The term ‘hate speech’, as used in this section, includes a broader spectrum of verbal acts drawing upon or expressing homophobia and/or transphobia in degrading or disrespectful public discourse. Based on available data, it is possible to identify at least three types of hate speech as having particular importance in a homophobic context: hate speech by public figures, hate speech by public religious figures and hate speech published, often anonymously, on the Internet.

…

[A]nti-LGBT statements are mainly articulated by conservative politicians and religious (Catholic, Lutheran or Evangelical Christian) public figures. These statements draw mainly upon the theme that LGBT persons and ways of living constitute a threat to society….it became clear that certain types of arguments were being used over and over again to speak out against lesbians and gays’. Among these are arguments:

• aiming to preserve the ethnic homogeneity and integrity of the nation and the state by excluding or subordinating gays and lesbians;

• drawing upon Christian belief to support the exclusion of gays and lesbians from the ‘moral community’ which is understood as encompassing the entire nation;

• referring to an unspecified morality, often invoking family values to argue for the exclusion or subordination of gays and lesbians. [emphasis added]

To the EU, any expression of the belief–including religious belief–that homoerotic activity is immoral or contrary to the health and integrity of the family and the larger community constitutes hate speech. Chew on that subversive idea for a while.

What do “progressive” leaders of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Microsoft view as evidence of hatred? What do they view as evidence of intolerance? Do they view expressions of disapproval of homoerotic activity or relationships as evidence of hatred or intolerance that should be banned? Do they view condemnation of the legal recognition of homoerotic unions as “marriages” as evidence of hatred or intolerance of those who believe differently and act in accordance with those beliefs? Do they view criticism of leftist assumptions about gender-dysphoria as hateful and intolerant?

To tolerate means to put up with or endure something objectionable. It does not mean approving of all actions or ideas or refraining from criticism of actions or ideas. And hatred of pernicious ideas does not constitute hatred of persons who espouse those ideas. Will this newly formed alliance of speech vigilantes make these distinctions? Doubtful.

Rather, it appears that in the service of expunging from the global public square ideas leftists don’t like, this alliance will, with Comstockian fervor, whitewash the Internet.

If you didn’t know who Dan Savage is, it’s probably a good thing. But right now we need you to familiarize yourselves with one of the cruelest, most vile political activists in America.

Why? Because ABC and Disney is airing a sitcom Dan Savage developed loosely based on his life.

A perusal of Dan Savage’s work reveals a career built on advocating violence — even murder — and spewing hatred against people of faith.

Savage has spared no one with whom he disagrees from his vitriolic hate speech. We have examples, but be warned, they are extremely graphic and offensive.

Watch this short Family Research Council video montage of Savage, and you’ll see just how despicable his actions are.

Despite his extremism, vulgarity, and unabashed encouragement of dangerous sexual practices, ABC’s newest sitcom with Savage as its executive producer is now airing on Tuesday evenings at 7:30 p.m. CT.

“The Real O’Neals” mocks Christianity and insults Catholicism. AFA recognizes this show ridicules people of faith, and Christians across America are offended by it.

It is almost impossible to describe the depth of depravity found in the sitcom “The Real O’Neals.” It is impossible to list them all, so here are a few scene descriptions from the show:

• Jesus appears where only the gay son can see and talk to Him, and He is annoyed by the mom’s strict guidelines for her family.
• The daughter steals money she is supposedly raising for charity.
• The daughter “attempts to prove” that there is no God in a science fair project.
• A statue of Mary is kept above the O’Neal’s toilet to remind the boys to put the seat down.
• The first jab at Jesus comes only 52 seconds into the first episode.
• The mother encourages her 16-year-old gay son to “try s-x” with a girl. (A dash ‘-‘ is used to bypass internet filters.)
• Vulgar language (ex. V-gina).
• The mom makes pancakes shaped like the face of Jesus to guilt trip her anorexic son into eating.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to sen an email to Lauren Thompson to let Simply Orange (Coca-Cola) know how disappointed you are to learn that they are spending corporate dollars to promote its products in association with the program “The Real O’Neals.”

You can also call them at: (800) 871-2653 to complain how they are using its advertising dollars to support anti-Christian bigotry and promoting animosity toward people of faith.

How do you like your Doritos? Original nacho cheese? Cool ranch? Or do you prefer homosexual chips?

That, apparently, is the newest choice that Doritos is giving consumers. The company, owned by Frito-Lay and a division of PepsiCo, announced that they will begin production of “Doritos Rainbow” in partnership with the It Gets Better Foundation. For a mere $10 donation to the non-profit It Gets Better Foundation you can own this “historic” bag of rainbow colored chips.

It’s become the “cool” thing for corporations to do rainbow this or rainbow that in order to show their support for the LGBT movement. Of course one has to wonder if it is more a marketing strategy than anything else. Fatty junk food isn’t exactly popular right now, so one way to jump start sales is to make a big deal of supporting gay people. But let’s assume it’s not a marketing ploy, what’s the purpose?

I don’t want to focus on the chips so much as I want to focus on the partnership Doritos has entered into with the It Gets Better Foundation. But before I do, let’s talk about the chips for a second.

Every company has the right to support whatever they want. But they must know that by doing so they bear the responsibility of the consequences. For example, I stopped supporting the United Way and Susan G. Komen for the Cure years ago. Why? Because they are partners with Planned Parenthood and, as much as possible, I want to make sure not a single dollar of my money goes to that criminal, vile organization that takes pleasure in profiting from the murder of innocent babies. By the way, that’s the reason I don’t support the Girls Scouts as well.

When I learned that PepsiCo was using the cells of aborted babies in their flavor testing process for various sodas, I immediately stopped buying Pepsi products. In fact, that was nearly 8 years ago. Doritos has every right to support homosexuality. But I have every right to show my disapproval of their decision by not buying their products. Just as I show my support for Chick-Fil-A’s position on marriage by eating there as often as possible.

Now let’s talk about the real irony and near stupidity of this decision by Doritos.

Doritos is issuing these rainbow chips for a $10 donation to the It Gets Better Foundation. In case you didn’t know, this foundation was started and is operated by Dan Savage. Dan Savage is one of the vilest human beings on this planet. As a homosexual man, Savage takes every opportunity to verbally dehumanize every person that remotely disagrees with him. Dan Savage is, essentially, a bully operating an anti-bullying organization.

What makes Savage such a bully?

There’s not enough time or space to write all of the offensive and derogatory statements Savage has made about Christians, conservatives, people of faith, or heterosexuals. I will, however, leave this one statement from a newsbusters article for your consideration:

“In his books Savage penned that Christian conservatives ‘march in lock-step with Osama bin Laden and his Islamo-fascist buddies.’ He compared Christians to the 9/11 terrorists and Adolf Hitler, obscenely mocked Catholicism labelling Catholic priests ‘altar-boy raping celibates,’ gleefully took the Lord’s name in vain, wished Christians dead, and said being a Republican is like having terminal cancer. In his sex -advice column ‘Savage Love’ the anti-bullying crusader referred to heterosexuals as ‘breeders,’ a derogatory gay pejorative for straight people, since they can procreate and gays cannot. ‘Savage Love’ found its author heartily encouraging his readers to engage in child molestation fantasies, bondage, drug use, affairs, three-ways, incestuous relationships and other disgusting sexual acts.”

It would seem that partnering with someone that bullies others is a career-ending affair. Unless you’re Dan Savage and you are bullying Christians and conservatives. In that case it is apparently acceptable. And while most partnerships would be immediately dissolved with the revelation of such atrocious comments, Doritos has made a decision to partner with Savage and his organization. For that matter, President Obama is quite proud of Savage as well. (Click here to read more comments by Savage.)

Let’s suppose a pudding company agreed to send rainbow pudding cups to every person that donated $10 to Westboro Baptist Church. How well do you think that would go over? How long before the pudding company was forced out of business because of their “intolerant” and “bigoted” partnership? I dare say it would be just days before the media circus would abruptly end the budding partnership.

Yet Doritos is partnering with a foundation that openly spews vile comments at Christians and conservatives in the exact same way Westboro does towards homosexuals and no one sees a problem with that.  But I’m betting the campaign and partnership can indeed be brought to an end by simply refusing to buy Doritos products. If money is their goal then the lack of money will end this campaign.

Like I said before, if Doritos wants to make rainbow chips and push a dangerous sexual agenda they have that right. It just means I will find another snack for my Monday Night Football party. But if they want to partner with a discriminating, bigoted bully to do it, well, that’s another matter entirely. If Doritos and San Savage truly care about equality then they both need to support equal respect for all people; including those that disagree with them.

Take ACTION:  Contact the Frito-Lay company to let them know what you think of their choice to support the radical LGBTQ agenda.  You can call the customer service line at (800) 352-4477

The Duggar controversy illuminates the truth that the cultural battle in which Christians are engaged is first and foremost a battle with principalities and powers:  “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12).

There is no other sensible explanation for the unseemly glee and unwarranted rage directed at this family by “progressives” who believe sodomy should be embraced as an identity. What, other than the influence of principalities and powers, can account for liberals taking aim at the Duggars—who  consistently demonstrate an otherworldly grace and gentleness—while rejoicing in Bruce Jenner’s tragic mental disorder and bodily mutilation and celebrating annual parades of perversion?

“Progressives” have provided the entire world with a graphic display (Warning: some obscene language) of ignorance and sickening schadenfreude.

Let’s take a little look-see at the mind-boggling claims that “progressives” make about the Duggars, claims which fuel their venomous assaults and expose their intellectual shallowness, moral vacuity, and unadulterated hypocrisy.

Claim 1. The Duggars are freaks because they reject the contraceptive culture that severs sex from marriage, sex from procreation, and procreation from marriage, and because they’re irresponsible, environmentally-unfriendly “breeders.”

Why is it weirder to oppose the contraceptive culture than it is to endorse intrinsically sterile erotic activity involving the excremental orifice?

Why is it weirder to deeply value the procreative function of sex—which is what accounts for the critical importance of marital permanence and exclusivity—than it is to value porn, erotic “literature,” sadomasochism, or homoerotic profligacy?

I understand why so many homosexuals enjoy the au courant sport of Duggar-hating. Homosexual activists have a vested personal interest in arguing that though the  biological implications of sexually complementary intercourse may be meaningful to individual couples, such implications have no inherent meaning or value relative to embodiment or human flourishing.

As to the environmental concerns of “progressives”—including Hollywood liberals, many of whom own huge swaths of property around the world and consume enormous amounts of natural resources to power their homes, planes, pools, and other accouterments of the lifestyles of the rich and famous: The world is not over-populated. There exists a problem with distribution of resources.

There is, however, a dearth of sexual sanity, grace, and wisdom, all of which the Duggars seem to amply possess. Who contributes more to a life-sustaining environment: The Jenner-Kardashian clan or the Duggars?

Claim 2. The Duggars are weird and cultish because they homeschool their kids, and the girls wear “prairie outfits.”

So, in our sordid carnival world, “prairie outfits” signify freakish repression, but a 65-year-old man in a lady’s satin corset represents female beauty and liberation? The Duggar girls in long skirts are weirder than Rihanna wearing completely—and I mean completely–transparent gowns to very public events?

If that’s the case, I’m all in for freakish prairie outfits. I would rather see my daughters in prairie outfits than have the whole world see them in the Empress’s new clothes. And I’d rather see my father lumber about in a suit of armor than sashay about in a chiffon peignoir. Yes, I’m just that transgressive—utterly liberated from the dictates of our socially disintegrated culture.

With regard to the homeschooling charge: it’s relevant to note that there are hundreds of liberal parents who homeschool their kids. The motivation for some is their view that public education fosters conformity over individualism. Some believe that public schools value uniformity over creativity. And some believe curricula are too test-driven. Those parents rarely if ever are criticized for weird cultishness.

No, it’s not the fact of homeschooling that generates all the foaming at the mouth we’ve seen in the past few weeks. It’s the Duggars’ reasons for homeschooling that drive homosexuals and their uber-cool allies to wax berserk and self-righteous.

The non-judgmental, tolerant disciples of diversity have judged that the desire to train up children to love God and theological orthodoxy is not merely counter-cultural and not merely weird, but twisted and evil.

Homosexual activists have all Christian institutions—including private schools, colleges, and universities—in their sights. And then they’ll come gunning for homeschools and airwaves. Before long, we will be Canada, or Germany where it is illegal to homeschool.

Deuteronomy 11:19 tells parents, “You shall teach [the words of the Lord] to your children, talking of them when you are sitting in your house, and when you are walking by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” Increasing numbers of Christian parents believe they cannot fulfill this instruction if their children are in public schools that are often hostile to Christian beliefs  7 hours a day, 5 days a week, 186 days a year, for 13-22 formative years.

Interestingly, anti-Christian bigots and sexual pagans seek the same thing Christian parents like the Duggars seek. They seek to shape the minds and hearts of children. The difference is anti-Christian bigots and sexual pagans want to train up other people’s children in the way they believe they should go, which is why they are so desperate to mock, condemn, and ultimately eradicate the homeschool movement.

Claim 3. (This one is a real howler and reveals just how bereft of moral reasoning many “progressives” are.) The Duggars are hypocrites because they espouse family values while both experiencing sin in their own family and concealing a serious sin committed by a minor child from the prying eyes and vengeful, darkened, judgmental hearts of strangers.

Seriously, that’s what they say—well, I may have tinkered with that last part a bit.

Does the Left understand what hypocrisy means? Hypocrisy is “The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; insincerity.”

Let’s look at some real life incidents to try to achieve some clarity on hypocrisy:

• When someone says to me, “Who are you to judge,” while hurling obscenities at me for saying that homoerotic activity is immoral, they may be hypocrites.
• When Leftist public “educators” claim to value diversity and oppose censorship while selecting multiple homosexuality-affirming resources to teach to students and then “not selecting” (otherwise known as censoring) dissenting resources,  they may be hypocrites.
• When Dan Savage condemns name-calling and then calls conservative high school students “pansies” and calls theologically orthodox Christians “b*tsh*t,” “a**h*le,” “d**cheb*gs,” he may be a hypocrite.

Of course, we don’t know if these individuals are hypocrites or if they simply failed to live up to their true beliefs.

The fact that a Duggar child, while a minor, committed a serious sexual sin and the Duggars express the belief that homoerotic activity is immoral does not even come close to hypocrisy.

The Left isn’t angry because the Duggars expressed a moral proposition that they—the Duggars—don’t truly believe. The Left is angry because the Duggars truly believe the moral proposition they expressed.

I wonder, does every homosexual whose minor child commits a moral offense or breaks the law lose the ethical right to express moral propositions? If a homosexual’s minor child steals something, is the homosexual parent engaging in hypocrisy if he expresses his sincerely-held belief that theft is immoral?

If the young teenage son of homosexuals were to view child pornography several times, are his parents forever precluded from publicly expressing their sincerely-held belief that “swinging” is wrong? Are his parents forever prohibited from condemning plural marriage and consensual adult incest?

Would these parents forever be prohibited from saying that disapproval of homosexuality is immoral, bigoted, and hateful, because those claims sound downright judgmental to me. And surely intellectual consistency would suggest that anyone who expresses those moral judgments must think themselves morally superior to others.

But the Duggars have never claimed the mantle of human behavioral perfection. It is homosexuals who claim that whenever theologically orthodox Christians express disapproval of homosexuality, said Christians are claiming to be morally superior.

Homosexuals also  ignorantly claim that any iteration of what the Bible teaches about homosexuality and the afterlife constitutes a desire on the part of Christians that homosexuals go to hell. If Christians actually desired that homosexuals go to hell, they would say nothing about what the Bible teaches. Of course, if anyone who claims to be a Christian desired that homosexuals go to hell, they wouldn’t, in reality, be Christians.

Following her respectful and compelling interview with the Duggars, it was troubling to hear Megyn Kelly state that the Duggars “pass judgment” on others. Since when did the expression of moral beliefs become passing judgment on others? And if expressing moral beliefs does, indeed, constitute passing judgment on others, then every human is guilty of passing judgment.

Oddly, when homosexuals express their innumerable moral propositions, they seem unfazed by any fear that they are claiming moral superiority or passing judgment on others. Nor do they keep their traps shut about what constitutes right or wrong behavior when a child of theirs commits a sin—which I can only assume happens on occasion.

Perhaps in between catapulting boulders at the Duggars, self-righteous, judgmental “progressives” could share whether they are absolutely certain they would take a minor child of theirs to the authorities—like the Duggars did—if they learned their child had inappropriately touched siblings in a non-penetrative way that the victims hadn’t noticed.

The ultimate reason these incidents came to light was not that some insider or journalist exposed them. Rather, it was that by age 14, Josh Duggar’s conscience was sufficiently formed to recognize that the feelings he harbored while engaging in inappropriate touching of which even his victims were unaware were very wrong.

Homosexuals and their allies in the war to enhance the moral status of sodomy fancy themselves free thinkers, liberated from the tyranny of “social construction” and the oppression of “THE MAN.” They rarely seem troubled by the fact that they are “THE MAN,” shaped by culturally regnant sexuality dogma. They now wield their entrenched power like a cudgel to impose their assumptions with a fearsome dictatorial power that makes the 1950’s look like the revolutionary summer of love and would color former Alabama governor George Wallace an enviable shade of green.

Written by Kevin D. Williams

In Indiana, in Arkansas, and in the boardroom

There are two easy ways to get a Republican to roll over and put his paws up in the air: The first is to write him a check, which is the political version of scratching his belly, and the second is to call him a bigot. In both cases, it helps if you have a great deal of money behind you.

Tim Cook, who in his role as chief executive of the world’s most valuable company personifies precisely the sort of oppression to which gay people in America are subjected, led the hunting party when Indiana’s governor Mike Pence signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, while Walmart, a company that cannot present its hindquarters enthusiastically enough to the progressives who hate it and everything for which it stands, dispatched its CEO, C. Douglas McMillon, to head off a similar effort in Arkansas, where Governor Asa Hutchison rolled over immediately.

There are three problems with rewarding those who use accusations of bigotry as a political cudgel. First, those who seek to protect religious liberties are not bigots, and going along with false accusations that they are makes one a party to a lie. Second, it is an excellent way to lose political contests, since there is almost nothing — up to and including requiring algebra classes — that the Left will not denounce as bigotry. Third, and related, it encourages those who cynically deploy accusations of bigotry for their own political ends.

An excellent illustration of this dynamic is on display in the recent pronouncements of columnist and gay-rights activist Dan Savage, who, in what seems to be an effort to resurrect every lame stereotype about the shrill, hysterical, theatrical gay man, declaimed that the efforts of those who do not wish to see butchers and bakers and wedding-bouquet makers forced by their government at gunpoint to violate their religious scruples is — you probably have guessed already — nothing less than the consecration of Jim Crow Junior. “Anti-black bigots, racist bigots, during Jim Crow and segregation made the exact same arguments that you’re hearing people make now,” Savage said. Given the dramatic difference in the social and political position of blacks in the time of Bull Connor and gays in the time of Ellen DeGeneres, this is strictly Hitler-was-a-vegetarian stuff, the elevation of trivial formal similarities over dramatic substantial differences. The choices for explaining this are a.) moral illiteracy; b.) intellectual dishonesty; c.) both a and b.

Adlai Stevenson famously offered this definition: “A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.” We do not live in that society.

Originally published at NationalReview.com

Sometimes we’re able to float through life blissfully unaware of the offal that the television, movie, cable, and video-streaming industries feed the culture. Often, we have a remarkable capacity for ingesting it and ignoring the vomit that results from ingesting offal. Other times, the stench from the offal and the vomit are just too much. That’s what’s happened to me.

The first outrage was hearing that NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams regularly watches his own daughter, Allison Williams, who is an actress on the vulgar HBO program Girls. In a recent episode, there was a brief scene in which a young man performs a sex act on her which I can’t describe in even general terms in this article. When questioned, her father offered this silly dismissal of his peculiar TV viewing habit:

She’s always been an actress. For us, watching her is the family occupation and everybody has to remember it’s acting, no animals were harmed during the filming, and ideally nobody gets hurt.

Then, last week, I learned that ABC is producing a sitcom based on the life of nasty, brutish, obscene sex columnist (and Chicago native) Dan Savage. This is the man who at a journalism conference for high school students insulted Christians and then, like a middle-school bully, hurled the anti-“gay” epithet “pansies” at those students who walked out. At a college speaking engagement, the savage Savage described conservative Christians as bat sh*t, a*sh*le, dou**ebags. And in his columns and on college tours, he cheerfully endorses threesomes and sexual practices that involve excrement.

The proverbial last straw that led to this article came yesterday when I was made aware that the puerile hosts of the Today Show are spending two entire weeks tittering about and promoting Fifty Shades of Grey, the softcore porn movie based on the hardcore porn novel. Yes, some will argue that because everything is relative and there are far more sexually explicit novels, Fifty Shades of Grey is not hardcore porn. But I joyfully reject the false belief that everything is relative and, therefore, I feel no compunction about describing Fifty Shades of Grey as hardcore porn.

For those who have been living on a compound in a cave on a remote island, Fifty Shades of Grey is the novelistic offal that extols the wonders of “bondage and discipline,” sadism, and masochism (BDSM) that child-women have been devouring. The stars are Dakota Johnson, daughter of Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson, and Jamie Dornan, a married Irish actor and father of a baby girl.

Here are some of the profoundly sad comments Dakota Johnson made in a CNN interview:

It’s stressful enough to be tied to a bed naked in a scene. But then they call cut, and you’re still tied to the bed, naked. Jamie would be the first one to throw a blanket over me….I don’t want my family to see [the movie], because it’s inappropriate. Or my brothers’ friends, who I grew up with.

Dakota Johnson’s response reveals the incoherence of her belief system: While recognizing the truth that there are things regarding her body that her family shouldn’t see, she fails to recognize that the world should not see these things either.

Whether actors realize it or not, the belief that the profession of acting renders nudity and erotic interactions with acquaintances morally justifiable reflects the human tendency toward Gnosticism. Gnosticism holds a dim view of materiality including physical embodiment and seeks to sever the inseverable link between body and spirit. Peter Burfeind explains how Gnostic thought shapes the prevailing cultural view of the body:

[T]he Gnostic reading of humanity…says the Self has nothing to do with the physical body, but rather the body is nothing more than vesture to be tailored any way one wants.

It’s all rooted in the narrative of one’s “Self” being liberated from the stifling oppression of the body and its various determinations…, rooted in the Gnostic notion that life is the story of the Self’s liberation from (or reconstituting of)…bodily realities in order to pursue the heroic journey of Self-divinization.

Nudity and erotic interactions always have meaning, which is why nudity and erotic interactions in theatrical performances are wrong. The body cannot be separated from the spirit. One can portray  another character through language, costuming, and movement, but one cannot be so wholly transformed that nudity and erotic interactions become the acts of someone else. In Dakota Johnson’s desire to be covered immediately after filming a sex scene and her desire that her family and brothers’ friends not see her movie, she apprehends something true that evidently escapes Brian Williams.

In the CNN interview, Jamie Dornan revealed the challenges of doing the BDSM scenes:

Some of the Red Room stuff was uncomfortable. There were times when Dakota was not wearing much, and I had to do stuff to her that I’d never choose to do to a woman.

A man of integrity would refuse to be in a room with an unclothed woman, doing dishonorable things to her. Claiming the mantle of actor does not render Dornan’s actions honorable. Dakota Johnson, the young woman, was in reality unclothed and Dornan did dishonorable things to her—not to a character—but to her. And worse still, he did them so that the whole world could see.

If nudity is morally defensible as long as one is acting, and if touching what we tell our children are “private parts” of someone with whom you have no intimate relationship is morally defensible as long as one is acting, then would it be morally defensible for Don Johnson to have acted with his daughter in the Jamie Dornan role? If not, why not?

Dakota Johnson reveals too an impoverished view of female empowerment:

[I]f I can be an advocate for women to do what they want with their bodies and not be ashamed of what they want, then I’m all for that.

Female flourishing and freedom do not come from unfettered bodily autonomy but from knowing and doing the will of God. And God does not desire that women engage in sexual acts that degrade and inflict pain on them with men to whom they are not married. Nor does God desire that actresses perform in movies or plays that call for them to be unclothed or touched intimately by men. While Fifty Shades of Grey seeks to depict liberation through titillating, boundary-pushing imagery, in reality, it serves to enslave women in the same sexual grip that has historically enslaved only men.

The Today Show is contributing to the cultural hyperventilation about this tacky movie made from a poorly written, tacky book by showing clips from the movie every day this week, having an advance showing for fans, hosting a contest in which fans are asked to write captions for different scenes, and inviting actors to the show to discuss the movie.

So far, not one guest has been invited to discuss seriously the meaning and effect of this cultural phenomenon on an understanding of sexuality and human flourishing. No discussion thus far of the gnostic aspects that appearing in such a movie signifies. No expressions of sadness about the debasement of women that the movie both reflects and encourages. No shame that teens may be ingesting this offal.

Spread the Word! 

Do you have friends or acquaintances who could benefit from IFI’s informational emails? If you do, please forward this IFI email to them and encourage them to subscribe to our e-mail list!

Thank you for helping us to reach more families!

Tragically, three days after Christmas, 17-year-old Joshua Alcorn committed suicide by stepping into the path of a tractor-trailer. Josh suffered from both gender dysphoria and depression. He left behind a suicide note that lays the blame for his pain on those in society who reject the assumptions of the Left about gender confusion, including his Christian parents.

Josh was particularly upset that his parents did not support his decision to start “transitioning,” which is yet another deceitful Leftist term because it suggests that one can transition from one sex to the opposite sex—a claim the Left implicitly acknowledges is impossible. Their implicit acknowledgement comes in the form of changing the name of the surgical procedure that mutilates healthy bodies from “sex reassignment” surgery to “gender confirmation” surgery. Though such surgery does, indeed, provide confirmation of the presence of a serious delusion or disordered desire, it does not confirm any objective existential reality.

But perhaps Josh was wrong. Perhaps his parents, motivated by love, were right in standing firm for the truth that he was in reality a boy. Perhaps they had read  in The Guardian that “There is no conclusive evidence that sex change operations improve the lives of transsexuals, with many people remaining severely distressed and even suicidal after the operation, according to a medical review….of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham’s aggressive research intelligence facility.”

Perhaps they had read about the study of 324 “sex-reassigned” men and women published in 2011 which found that they “have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.”

Or perhaps Josh’s parents had heard about the deep regret some men and women experience following their sex “reassignment” butchery.

The Left attributes to conservatives blame for the depression and suicidal ideation of both those who identify as “transgender” and those who identify as homosexual, and in so doing overlook other possible causes for the depression that these girls, boys, men, and women experience.

Perhaps the depression and suicidal ideation that gender-confused teens, post-op “transsexuals,” and homosexuals experience results in part from societal disapproval,* but perhaps their anguish results at least in part from apprehension of the truth that God has written on their hearts regarding homoerotic activity, cross-dressing, and bodily mutilation.

Or perhaps both depression and disordered desires related to sexuality are symptoms of other underlying problems.

Unfortunately, homosexual and “trans”activists are making it impossible to explore such possibilities. They vehemently oppose such exploration even if it may result in less suffering for those who experience same-sex attraction or gender confusion.

Homosexual and “trans” activists are not interested in finding ways to mitigate suffering unless such ways include promoting their assumptions about homoerotic activity and gender confusion. They will tolerate no discussion of theories regarding causation that may undermine their social and political goals of compulsory affirmation of their non-factual beliefs. The promotion of their self-serving sexuality ideology supersedes everything, including the welfare of others.

Since the Left dominates academia, the arts, and the mainstream press, we all know what they believe about homoerotic attraction, gender dysphoria, and the depression that often accompanies both, but here are some other ideas that are worthy of consideration:

• Perhaps teaching teens who experience same-sex attraction or gender confusion the politically expedient lie that all conservatives hate them contributes to their anguish.

• Perhaps the anguish of homosexual or gender-confused teens is exacerbated when they’re told that their only hope for a fulfilling life depends on the affirmation of their same-sex attraction or desire to be the opposite sex.

• Perhaps telling homosexual or gender-confused teens that their desires will never change contributes to their despair.

• Perhaps the refusal of “progressives” to tell teens who experience same-sex attraction that childhood molestation can contribute to what homosexual therapist Howard Fradkin refers to as “sexual orientation confusion” does a disservice to them.

• Perhaps early exposure to images and depictions of homoerotic activity contributes to the development of homoerotic desire and to homoerotic experimentation. Children are being exposed at ever younger ages to images of homoerotic activity through novels, magazines, advertising, music, television, movies, online porn, and public school teachers. It seems at least possible that such exposure may lead to questioning the moral status of homoeroticism, to sexual arousal, and to homoerotic experimentation, particularly among young boys whose bodies are awash in testosterone.The Left has long promoted the fiction that they know with certainty that same-sex attraction is biologically determined, which may lead conservatives to the grave error of believing that only some children are biologically vulnerable to being aroused by homoerotic images. But can anyone say with certainty that exposure at young ages to homoerotic images or early experimentation with homoerotic activity due to exposure to such images will not create a persistent desire for such activity?

• In regard to gender confusion, the Left often claims that “God doesn’t make mistakes,” meaning that if a girl or boy feels they were born in the wrong body, they actually must have been born in the wrong body. End of story. But if it’s true that God doesn’t make mistakes, why would anyone assume that healthy properly functioning sexual anatomy is a mistake that requires barbaric medical interventions, some of which result in sterility? Virtually no one makes a similar claim about those who experience Body Integrity Identity Disorder.

Acknowledging the profound suffering of Josh Alcorn should not lead other parents of similarly suffering teens to affirm their desires or to blindly accept that Josh’s posthumously published words reflect the real cause of his suffering. Most teens at some point or many points blame their parents for their suffering in matters great and small.

With nothing but the words of a deeply depressed, confused, and despairing teen for evidence, the vicious, foolish, and supremely arrogant homosexual activist and bully extraordinaire Dan Savage heaped more pain upon grieving parents by writing that Josh’s “parents threw ‘her’ in front of that truck. They should be ashamed—but 1st they need to be shamed. Charges should be brought.”

There is no evidence that Josh Alcorn’s parents abused him or even rejected him. They rejected his belief that his desire to be a girl signified something true and good. They rejected Josh’s belief that his desire to be a girl should be affirmed as central to his identity. And they rejected his request to pursue bodily mutilation. Despite the claims of Dan Savage to the contrary, reports indicate that Josh’s parents loved him deeply and expressed that love to him.

Apparently homosexual and “transgender” activists like Savage hold the peculiar view that in order to properly love teens, parents must affirm all of their beliefs, feelings, and volitional acts. But wiser minds understand that parental love for children who experience unchosen same-sex attraction or gender confusion is not demonstrated through affirmation of disordered desires.  Genuine love is inseparable from truth. Parents of children who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria must learn how to communicate their love while always affirming truth about sexuality, gender, embodiment, and human flourishing.

If Christians hope to alleviate the suffering of children and adults who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, they must guard against the lies that now devour them. Don’t believe the lie that speaking truth in love causes death. And don’t believe the false accusations of those who do not know truth.

Instead, remember these words from Jesus who accuses rightly:  ^“You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). It is the Father of Lies who deceived Josh and then falsely accuses all those who follow Christ for Josh’s suffering.

*The fact that disapproval of a particular behavior causes distress in those who desire to engage in such behavior does not mean that disapproval is wrong.

Spread the Word! 

Do you have friends or acquaintances who could benefit from IFI’s informational emails? If you do, please forward this IFI email to them and encourage them to subscribe to our e-mail list!

It is only because of concerned citizens like you that we are able to continue promoting pro-family values in the Prairie State.

Thank you for helping us to reach more families!

For years now, anti-Christian activists have been pushing the hate button and accusing those of us who hold to biblical morality and family values of being intolerant, hate-filled bigots (and worse).

But this strategy, seen most recently in the attack on godly twin brothers, Jason and David Benham, will inevitably defeat itself. After all, when the alleged victims are the bullies and the alleged tolerant ones are full of bigotry, their rhetoric cannot be taken seriously.

Back in 2008, as Californians voted to preserve marriage with the Proposition 8 marriage amendment, the amendment was quickly dubbed Prop Hate, as if the only way anyone could believe that marriage was the union of a man and woman was if they were full of hate.

But that was only the beginning. In Sacramento, demonstrators held signs reading: 

• Prop 8=American Taliban
• Ban Bigots
• Majority Vote Doesn’t Matter
• 52%=Nazi [this referred to the 52-48% vote in favor of Prop 8]
• Don’t Silence the Christians, Feed Them 2 the Lions
• Your Rights Are Next

Taliban? Nazis? Feed them to the lions?

This kind of demonization will only defeat itself in the long run exposing who the real bigots are.

In the last week, as soon as my newest book was released, I was accused of being the incarnation of the late Fred Phelps (infamous for his “God hates fags” protests), as well as branded the leader of my own “religious cult” that “requires human sacrifices.” (I’m not making this up.)

So, by writing a book filled with compassion and speaking of God’s great love for those who identify as LGBT, also urging the Church to recognize the unique struggles faced by those with same-sex attractions, I have become a hate-filled bigot and cult leader.

It’s like calling Shaquille O’Neal small or Bill Gates poor.

At some point reality kicks in – in this case, the moment someone reads the first pages of my book (or the middle pages or the last pages) – and instead of advancing their cause, the anti-Christian activists undermine their own.

In a blog post entitled, “The homophobic rantings of Michael L Brown,” Jay H. wrote, “Fred Phelps is dead. Long live Fred Phelps, apparently. Or rather his new incarnation: Michael L. Brown.”

Unfortunately for Jay H., when people actually read my book, rather than “homophobic rantings,” they find the opposite. As one reader noted, “[Brown] . . . freely uses life testimonies of people who were divinely delivered from homosexuality, and others NOT divinely delivered from homosexuality. This isn’t cherry-picked propaganda here…there are sections in this book that are very sobering for [an] evangelical believer to read.”

And so, readers quickly realize that I am no more the new Fred Phelps than I’m the new Michael Jordan, and the anti-Christian rhetoric exposes itself.

That’s what is happening with my good friends David and Jason Benham, Christian businessmen and committed husbands and fathers.

They were about to be the stars of a new reality show on HGTV that featured them helping hurting families get their dream homes, until a single post on RightWingWatch caused HGTV to pull the plug. (For those unfamiliar with RightWingWatch, the website is a project of Norman Lear’s ultra-liberal People for the American Way. The website references Christian family activist Phyllis Schafly 351 times, conservative political leader Gary Bauer 334 times, President Ronald Reagan 111 times, author Chuck Colson 57 times, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas 37 times, just to give a few examples. You can be sure most all of the references were not flattering.)

Shortly after HGTV announced its decision, a young man on YouTube opined that the Benham brothers were “the textbook definition of a psychopath” and that “they have no feelings, no consideration for other people.”

The problem, of course, is that the moment you get to know David and Jason – or even watch them on a TV interview for a few minutes or see them interacting with their families – you realize that they are not the ones who need help. It’s the young man on YouTube who needs help, and I can guarantee that if they had the opportunity, the Benhams would reach out to him directly to show him the love of God. (When I played part of this YouTube clip for Jason on my radio show, he responded with real compassion and concern.)

But it’s not just some anonymous YouTuber who is spouting such extreme, self-disqualifying anti-Christian rhetoric.

Dan Savage, a leading gay activist (and sex columnist) supported HGTV’s decision, comparing the Benham’s pro-family viewpoints to “white people” who used to “go on TV and say the most racist [expletive] imaginable (argue against legal interracial marriage, argue in favor of segregation) and keep their jobs and be invited back on TV to say that [expletive] a second time.”

Savage facetiously remarked that “hating the [expletive] out of gay people is something all Christians have in common,” titling his blog, “HGTV Cancels Reality Show After Twin Stars Anti-Gay Activism and Rabid Homophobia Exposed.”

What is rabid, however, is not the position of the Benhams. It is Dan Savage’s militant and vicious anti-Christian rhetoric that is rabid, and so, when reasonable, thinking people listen to Savage and to the Benham brothers, it’s easy to see who is filled with hate and who is filled with love.

Eventually, as those who claim to be champions of tolerance and diversity continue their crusade to silence and defame those who differ with them, they will ultimately defeat themselves.

Watch and see.

This article was originally posted at the TownHall.com blog.

As the Illinois House of Representatives in Springfield stands poised to pass yet another homosexuality-affirming “anti-bullying” bill out of committee and as our public schools prepare for yet another homosexuality-affirming Day of Silence—all of which are sponsored by homosexual activists—it’s a good time to be reminded of the character of the country’s premier “anti-bullying” activist: Dan Savage.

Please endure this video to its repugnant end:

WARNING: HIGHLY OFFENSIVE CONTENT

Remember, this man who speaks so stupidly on “integrity” is the creator of the “anti-bullying” “It Gets Better” campaign, and he’s the man whom Barack Obama invited to the White House “Conference on Bullying Prevention.”

IFI once again offered to remain neutral on the newest proposed “anti-bullying” bill, HB 5707, sponsored by lesbian activist State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) if the sponsors would include an opt-out conscience provision that would allow parents to opt their children out of any “anti-bullying” training that includes assumptions from homoerotic identity politics. Rep. Cassidy once again, refused.

Take ACTION:   Please click HERE to contact your state representative and urge her or him to oppose any “anti-bullying” bill that does not include an opt-out, and please keep your kids home from school on Friday if your administration is allowing students to refuse to speak in class.

Here’s more from the dishonest and vulgar Savage:

WARNING: HIGHLY OFFENSIVE CONTENT

This first video is Dan Savage speaking to a group of high school journalism students. What if a high school were to invite Savage to speak to students on bullying. If Cassidy has her way, parents could not opt their children out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0k9qDsOvs (a biblical exegete, he’s not)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcK1NqZ-elQ  (For Protestants)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-WqjAGihoM  (For Catholics)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09RMqWo6br0

 Become a monthly supporter of IFI.  Click HERE for more information.

Mark Twain is attributed with having observed “a lie can travel half way around the world before the truth even gets its shoes on.” In this age of instant and round-the-clock media, Twain’s warning is even truer today.

It is interesting to see how some of the biggest cultural issues in America recently have been based upon the lies of liberalism.  For example, the Jane Roe of the Roe v. Wade abortion case was supposedly seeking an abortion after being the victim of a gang rape.  Years later, Norma McCorvey, now a born-again Christian and pro-life advocate, admitted that she was never raped at all. It was an intentional lie meant to advance an agenda that has led to 55 million aborted babies.

In the case of Lawrence v. Texas, which paved the way toward the normalization of homosexuality and the unraveling of marriage, the emotional misnomer was that a police officer looked in the window of a home and saw two males engaged in a sex act, entered the house and arrested them on the spot.  In reality the police were there on a tip about a man with a gun, when they entered the home the clothed men were in two different rooms. Both told officers various lies for differing reasons, and later plead no contest after being coached about making their case into something that could be used by cultural activists.

Although some attempted to point out these facts years ago, the case of Matthew Shephard has reemerged with the publishing of a new book. It is notable in part because it is written by a homosexual (who is now persona non grata with the homosexual demands crowd.)  After interviewing hundreds of people involved in the case, he points out that Shephard was not the victim of a brutal hate crime committed by rednecks because of his homosexuality. 

(Today, a radical gay activist like Dan Savage can insult Christian children with profane, vulgarity-laced speeches in schools to the praise of many. Choose not to make a wedding cake and your business can be shut down based upon your “hate.”)

In reality, the case that launched the nationwide hate crime statute frenzy, which may threaten freedom of speech, was actually a gay on gay crime involving drugs.  Shephard had recently slept with his killer in exchange for methamphetamine.  During that time, one of the murders who had been strung out for five days and owed his dealers money learned that Matthew was part to be a part of a $10,000 drug deal.  He and a friend came back, found Matthew and killed him hoping to get the drugs or money.   The truth was nothing like the hate crime narrative endlessly repeated by the media.

What does it all mean? Perhaps it is just another indictment of causes that are so lacking in righteousness that they need lies to advance them. (As Ronald Reagan once warned, “private values must be at the heart of public policies.”)  Hopefully, it is a reminder that making laws on emotional reactions instead of facts and consideration of the full policy ramifications can have sweeping consequences.  

On Wednesday, Erika Wurst, reporter for the Sun Times Beacon-News wrote an article about East Aurora High School’s recently adopted policy on gender confusion. In it Wurst quoted a “suburban high school math teacher” who blogged favorably about the policy, but curiously, she didn’t provide his name. His name is Hemant Mehta, also known as “the Friendly Atheist.” Although I am loathe to send anyone to his blog, I think readers deserved to know who exactly the math teacher is whom Wurst quoted. Knowing who he is puts his comments in the proper perspective. 

If you spend any time on Mehta’s blog, you will find that he promotes both atheism and the extraordinarily obscene and hateful religious bigot Dan Savage. In addition, Mehta, who is a Neuqua Valley High School math teacher, regularly uses profane and obscene language. Mehta’s endorsement of the East Aurora High School policy provides further evidence that it’s bad policy. 

It’s understandable why Wurst would not want to provide attribution for a source like Mehta, but such an omission is not good journalism.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that President Barack Obama invited the obscene, Christian-hating, homosexual, manboy Dan Savage to the White House. After all, President Obama’s  “Safe School Czar” was the homosexual founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Kevin Jennings; and Obama awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously to the infamous homosexual Harvey Milk who was deified in the Hollywood film Milk.

And why am I bringing this up? I’m bringing it up because May 22 is “Harvey Milk Day” in California–yet another abuse of public schools to advance the moral beliefs of homosexuals and their ideological allies. There are few reasons to be thankful to live in Illinois, but this is one: We don’t yet have a law proclaiming a day of commemoration for Harvey Milk in our public schools.

I’m also bringing it up because many have seen or heard of the eponymous film about Harvey Milk and starring Sean Penn but may not know how far from reality the film’s depiction of Milk is.

In 2009, then governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 572 into law. This law, introduced by openly homosexual Senator Mark Leno, designates May 22 “as having special significance in public schools and educational institutions and would encourage those entities to conduct suitable commemorative exercises on that date.”

And why do liberal California lawmakers consider May 22 significant in public schools? They believe that children in grade K-12 should commemorate annually the birthday of the “first openly gay man to be elected to public office in a major city of the United States,” who was murdered by a disgruntled colleague.

The law states that “all public schools and educational institutions are encouraged to observe…and to conduct suitable commemorative exercises as follows: On Harvey Milk Day, exercises remembering the life of Harvey Milk, recognizing his accomplishments, and familiarizing pupils with the contributions he made to this state.”

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council says this about the man whom Obama and Schwarzenegger think should be honored: “Milk is famous only for winning one election, being murdered – and having sex with men.”

And it wasn’t just adult men with whom Milk had sex. Sprigg recounts that Milk was also fond of teenage boys. In fact, one of his live-in relationships was a pederastic relationship with a 16-year-old boy when Milk was 33.  Yes, I can understand why Obama wanted to honor him and Schwarzenegger thinks children should commemorate him.

According to Daniel Flynn, “the real Harvey Milk was a short-tempered demagogue who cynically invented stories of victimhood to advance his political career.” And contrary to the implication in the film, Milk was not murdered because of his homosexuality, but rather because he was instrumental in preventing a board of supervisors member from regaining his seat.

The most shocking omission from the film and likely from the tall tales California public school teachers tell their young students is that Harvey Milk was a huge supporter of Reverend Jim Jones:

Nine days prior to Milk’s death, more than 900 followers of Jim Jones — many of them campaign workers for Milk — perished in the most ghastly set of murder-suicides in modern history. Before the congregants of the Peoples Temple drank Jim Jones’s deadly Kool-Aid, Harvey Milk and much of San Francisco’s ruling class had already figuratively imbibed. Milk occasionally spoke at Jones’s San Francisco–based headquarters, promoted Jones through his newspaper columns, and defended the Peoples Temple from its growing legion of critics. Jones provided conscripted “volunteers” for Milk’s campaigns to distribute leaflets by the tens of thousands. Milk returned the favor by abusing his position of public trust on behalf of Jones’s criminal endeavors.

“Rev. Jones is widely known in the minority communities here and elsewhere as a man of the highest character, who has undertaken constructive remedies for social problems which have been amazing in their scope and effectiveness,” Supervisor Milk wrote President Jimmy Carter seven months before the Jonestown carnage. The purpose of Milk’s letter was to aid and abet his powerful supporter’s abduction of a six-year-old boy. Milk’s missive to the president prophetically continued: “Not only is the life of a child at stake, who currently has loving and protective parents in the Rev. and Mrs. Jones, but our official relations with Guyana could stand to be jeopardized, to the potentially great embarrassment of our State Department.” John Stoen, the boy whose actual parents Milk libeled to the president as purveyors of “bold-faced lies” and blackmail attempts, perished at Jonestown. This, the only remarkable episode in Milk’s brief tenure on the San Francisco board of supervisors, is swept under the rug by his hagiographers.

This is the man that homosexuals and their allies celebrate and seek to promote as a hero in our taxpayer-subsidized schools. In their effort to exalt Milk as a civil rights hero in public schools to young, naive students,  the truth about him is concealed. There’s even a children’s picture book designed to indoctrinate little ones, titled The Harvey Milk Story. It’s been positively reviewed by Kirkus Reviews and by K.T. Horning, children’s librarian, author, and educator who has served on numerous influential literary boards, and “many book award and evaluation committees, including the American Library Association’s “Rainbow List.”

Public schools are one of the central battlegrounds for the war on moral truth regarding homosexuality. Specious “civil rights” arguments, like the ones promoted by worshippers of Harvey Milk, based on an absurd, untenable comparison of homosexuality to race, and media-fomented hysteria about bullying are driving the exploitation of public education.

Unless and until parents become willing to tell administrators and teachers preemptively that under no circumstances are their children to be exposed to any resources or activities that mention homosexuality or gender confusion, the exploitation will not merely continue, it will increase.

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

WARNING: Not for younger readers

They used to arrest middle-aged perverts who get their jollies from talking dirty to children. Today, they get a television show, a nationally syndicated column, a lecture circuit and multiple visits to the Obama White House.

You know: “Forward.”

The irony is palpable. Dan Savage, sex columnist and founder of the LGBT anti-bullying “It Gets Better” campaign, has been outed. Not as a homosexual. He’s out and proud in that regard. In fact, Savage pushes his “anything goes” brand of sexual anarchy on kids worldwide. MTV has even given the sex-obsessed radical his own show, “Savage U” – a moral-relativist platform from which to corrupt the kiddos.

Creepy stuff.

No, Savage has finally managed to publicly discredit himself as the anti-Christian bigot and bully he’s always been. Never again will this guy be taken seriously as an anti-bullying crusader.

Savage lectures teens in high schools and colleges around the country on the benefits of “non-monogamy,” the occasional “three-way” tryst and any other disease-spreading sexual impulse that might cross their impressionable, hormone-charged young minds (and many they can’t yet imagine).

Well, recently, rather than just shocking his teenaged audience with vulgar, sophomoric psychobabble as usual, Savage apparently thought it’d be fun to bully the kids with whom he disagreed.

While addressing a crowd of hundreds of high schoolers at the National High School Journalism Convention, Savage launched into an unhinged anti-Christian diatribe. He advised the teens to “ignore the bulls*** in the Bible” about sexual morality. “We ignore bulls*** in the Bible about all sorts of things,” he barked.

He then walked through a list of the same tired left-wing talking points about the Bible – long ago discredited – covering shellfish, virginity, etc. “The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document,” he said (anti-Christian trash we’ve come to expect from the secular left).

But when a hundred or more kids got up and began to walk out on Savage’s anti-Christian rant, the 47-year-old tough guy turned his hostility toward them. “It’s funny to someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansy***** people react when you push back,” he mocked. Some of the young girls were seen leaving in tears.

“It took a real dark, hostile turn, certainly, as I saw it,” teacher Rick Tuttle told CNN. “It became very hostile toward Christianity, to the point that many students did walk out, including some of my students.

“They felt that they were attacked … a very pointed, direct attack on one particular group of students. It’s amazing that we go to an anti-bullying speech and one group of students is picked on in particular, with harsh, profane language.”

But the only thing surprising is that anyone is surprised. Dan Savage is known in Christian circles at “the gay Fred Phelps.” Phelps, of course, is the similarly cartoonish Westboro Baptist “preacher” who gained notoriety by protesting military funerals with his incestuous brood of pseudo-Christian haters. Savage is Phelps’ photo negative. Whereas Phelps’ hateful mantra is “God hates fags,” Savage’s central message is “I hate God and anyone who loves Him.”

Savage’s primary claim to fame is that he formed the website “Santorum.com,” to create a “Google bomb” that would smear the good name of former senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum. On the site he redefined the senator’s last name, Santorum, using language so vile and repulsive that I won’t repeat it. When Christian advocate and Americans for Truth founder Peter LaBarbera asked Savage to take down the website, Savage responded, “I’m asking Peter LaBarbera to go f*** himself.”

Savage also once bragged that he licked the doorknobs at former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer’s campaign office in hopes of giving Mr. Bauer the flu.

Savage told the Daily Pennsylvanian in 2006 that Carl Romanelli, a U.S. senate candidate he didn’t like, “should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope.” In the same interview, he opined: “Mr. Romanelli should go f*** himself.” He also once said on HBO that he “wished all Republicans were f***ing dead.”

Yep, this deviant troglodyte is the face of the left’s anti-bullying efforts. I’ve often said that those wonderfully “tolerant” liberals – the self-styled opponents of “hate” and “bigotry” – are the most intolerant, hateful bigots among us.

Thanks for proving my point, Dan.

WARNING: Not for younger readers

With Bill Clinton-esque rhetorical slipperiness, Dan Savage responds to my criticism of his anti-Christian hate speech by citing a video from which I did not quote and to which I did not provide a link in either of my two articles this week. About that video, he asks the following:

[S]ee if you can detect hate speech, ‘virulent anti-Christian bigotry,’ or ‘language so hateful’ that I make ‘Reverend Fred Phelps look like a choir boy’ in my advice to gay kids with evangelical Christian parents.

Dan Savage claims that the video I was referring to when providing evidence that he exhibits virulent anti-Christian bigotry using hateful language was the video about homosexuals coming out to their Evangelical families. Of course, that is an offensive video, but it isn’t the one from which I quoted this week.

The video  (now removed) from which I quoted and to which I provided a link was a video from a speaking engagement of Savage’s at Rhodes College.

By directing attention to a video that I did not quote from or link to in either of this week’s articles, Savage maladroitly attempts to divert attention away from the adjectives he used to describe orthodox Christians and which I quoted several times in this week’s articles.

The question Savage needs to answer is: Did he describe orthodox Christians (i.e., those who hold traditional, historical biblical views on the nature and morality of homosexuality) as “bat sh*t, a**h*le, dou**ebags” while speaking at Rhodes College?

One final note: Savage reports that the video production service he uses, Hypomania Content, removed six of his videos purportedly due to their “poor quality” rather than their “content.” It’s completely understandable that Hypomania Content would want only “high quality” obscene and perverse videos from Dan Savage gamboling about the Internet.