On September 9, 2022, Indiana University (IU) issued a press release announcing that in honor of the 75^th anniversary of the Kinsey Institute, the university has installed a life-size bronze statue of entomologist and pervert extraordinaire Alfred C. Kinsey after whom the Kinsey Institute is named.

Demonstrating the astonishing ignorance of leftists, the press release says,

The sculpture’s installation on the Bloomington campus demonstrates the university’s pride in the living legacy of research and academic freedom Kinsey helped to forge and the institute’s ongoing commitment to equity regarding sexual diversity established by Kinsey’s research.

Well, Kinsey was inarguably a fan of what IU calls euphemistically “sexual diversity,” and his legacy tragically lives on, but neither his predilection for “sexual diversity” nor his legacy are deserving of prideful honors.

Demonstrating a risible absence of irony, Justin Garcia, executive director of the Kinsey Institute, said this—I kid you not:

Dr. Kinsey left us with the extraordinary legacy of his endless scientific curiosity, his unwavering commitments to academic freedom and his passion for understanding humanity’s sexual diversity. … This spectacular sculpture honors Kinsey’s international scholarly and public impact.

I would agree if by “spectacular,” Garcia means “of, relating to, or being a spectacle.”

“Legacy of “endless scientific curiosity” is Newspeak for unbridled, morally untethered sexual license, which is really not all that extraordinary. Countless numbers of perverts share Kinsey’s endless curiosity. The diverse porn pandemic reveals that sick reality. What Kinsey possessed that ordinary, run-of-the-mill perverts lack is the imprimatur of academia.

Having a life-size bronze sculpture of a creeper/criminal who self-identified as a serious scholar is definitely a spectacle and one wholly unworthy of any institution committed to “Lux et Veritas—”Light and Truth.”

Here are some of the salient features of Kinsey’s salacious life and research:

• “In Kinsey’s 1948 report he recounted using nine men to ‘observe’ the sexual responses of children for his research. … ‘Some of these adults … are technically trained persons who have kept diaries or other records which have been put at our disposal.’ He included a chart that indicated that these ‘trained’ adults were inducing sexual ‘orgasms’ in babies as young as five months of age. One four-year-old is reported to have had 26 ‘orgasms’ in 24 hours. An 11- month-old baby had 14 ‘orgasms’ in 38 minutes.”

• In reality, it was revealed in 1995 that all this data came from the diaries of one pedophile named Rex King who attempted to “bring to orgasm boys between the ages of 2 months and 15 years, in some cases over a period as long as 24 hours.” Kinsey eagerly encouraged King to send all his diaries: “I rejoice at everything you send.” In the 2004 movie starring Liam Neeson as Kinsey, the actor portraying King says this:

My grandmother introduced me to sexual intercourse when I was 10. My first homosexual act was with my father. I was 11. The 33 members of my extended family – I’ve had sex with 17 of them. That’s five generations now. … I’ve had sex with 22 separate species of animals. I’ve had intercourse with 9, 412 people. I’ve had sexual relations with 605 pre-adolescent males and 231 pre-adolescent females.

• “In his 1953 report the sexual data was mainly taken from ‘adult partners’ of 609 pre-adolescent girls. Kinsey called these molestations ‘play’ and claimed them harmless.”

• Criteria used to determine when infants were experiencing “orgasm” included “violent convulsions, groaning, ‘an abundance of tears’ (i.e., sobbing), extreme trembling and fainting. In other words, what any normal adult would view as a child’s severe reactions to trauma Kinsey interpreted as children enjoying themselves.”

• Kinsey’s “research” has been criticized for serious methodological and ethical flaws, including using significant numbers of imprisoned child molesters and prostitutes as well as a Nazi pedophile (Friedrich “Fritz” Von Balluseck) but reporting their responses as representative of the population at large.

• The married Kinsey had sex with many men, including students and research assistants.

• Kinsey encouraged his wife to have sex with other men.

• Kinsey recorded sexual activities between his wife and other men, and homosexual acts between men and group sex in his attic.

• Kinsey circumcised himself with a pocketknife at about age 60.

• Kinsey had himself filmed masturbating while inserting objects into his urethra.

American historian and art critic Kelly Grovier writing for the BBC about the BLM rioters who went on a statuary-destruction tear offers this about the meaning of statues:

From their earliest inception … statues were … less about the individuals they depict than about how we see ourselves.

Clearly, Kinsey represents favorably how many Americans see themselves.

While the Founding Fathers, whose statues were defaced or torn down in 2020, were men with moral blind spots, it was not their moral failings that were honored. Today’s Americans don’t see themselves in or seek to honor the moral failings of Thomas Jefferson. No, it was the wisdom and noble efforts to create a more perfect union that Americans honor through their statues of the great men of American history. In their statues, Americans see an aspirational picture of themselves and the country that has been a beacon of light to millions.

In contrast, Kinsey’s depravity is not a moral blind spot that his fans overlook. His depravity is what they celebrate. Kinsey is like Harvey Milk in that regard. Both men are honored by leftists because of their depravity–not despite it.

Grovier continues:

Just how engrained that instinct is – to perceive an aspect of oneself in the image of another – is impossible to measure. Such an impulse may explain why it is so agonisingly difficult to tolerate the persistence of memorials that venerate past masters of pain. Theirs is a suffocating weight. The outrage that many feel about having to share the streets with such hulking ghosts of oppression is deep and crushingly real. 

A statue of Kinsey—the abusive father of the sexual revolution and, therefore, master of incalculable pain—is agonizingly difficult to tolerate. His statue is a suffocating weight. The hulking bronze ghost of Kinsey is a painful reminder of the suffering of the many victims—the slaughtered unborn, children without mothers or fathers, single parents, and children whose minds are being deceived and bodies mutilated—of Kinsey’s sexual revolution.

While repugnant, perhaps the bronze statue at the public Indiana University honoring Alfred Kinsey fits the repugnant contemporary era leftists have socially constructed in America where our public schools train up children in the ways sexually perverse leftists want them to go. At the same time, it is a grotesque reminder of the human suffering Kinsey has caused.

At the most recent School District 200 Board Meeting in Wheaton, Illinois, new school board member and cunning rhetorician, Mary Yeboah, Director of Graduate Student Life at Wheaton College, posed six questions to the board,  beginning with a prefatory statement that let the woke cat out of the bag:

I would like to ask six rhetorical questions regarding the proposed October 10th, 2022 and October 9th, 2023 no-school all-grades Columbus Day/Indigenous People’s Day in relation to district purposes outlined in the mission of School District 200, Vision 2022, and the portrait of a graduate work. To be very clear, these are not questions that I expect you to answer right now. I am asking them for the benefit of reflective thinking for the district, especially in the month leading up to the approval of these calendars.

One, does the District 200 administration recognize the impact of holidays, statues, and other memorials on shaping school culture, which in turn shapes student experiences and outcomes?

Two, does the District 200 administration consider celebrating extreme violence, theft, genocide, and dehumanization to be in line with the study of social science to help students develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the benefit of the global society in which they live?

Three, does the District 200 administration affirm the accurate telling of history and recognize the impossibility of “discovering” land already inhabited?

Four, does the District 200 administration take into consideration the perspectives of Indigenous people regarding this particular calendar event?

Five, could maintaining this District 200 calendar event unintentionally support a myth of U.S. exceptionalism that could undermine district efforts to create diverse, inclusive schools for all children?

Lastly, does this calendar event advance the vision and mission of District 200 goals? And if it does not, must it remain despite state-level support?

It was so considerate of Yeboah to make very clear that she didn’t expect her six loaded questions to be answered immediately. It was also odd in that she had declared these were rhetorical questions, which are questions intended to make a point—not to be answered.

After some reflective thinking, I have some reflective thoughts and questions on Yeboah’s questions.

1.) Does Yeboah recognize the impact of using a leftist lens through which to view, socially construct, revise, and impose a particular interpretation of the meaning of holidays, statues, and other memorials, which in turn shapes student experiences, beliefs, and outcomes—including outcomes like the 2020 riots?

2.) Yeboah’s second question presumes an astonishing premise that she doesn’t even attempt to prove: She presumes that Columbus Day is a celebration of “extreme violence, theft, genocide, and dehumanization.” That is akin to saying Martin Luther King Day is a celebration of plagiarism, marital infidelity, and the exploitation of women.

What school has ever used Columbus Day to celebrate extreme violence, theft, genocide, or dehumanization?

Historian Victor Davis Hanson offers a relevant critique of the impulse that animates Yeboah:

Campuses and Western critics in the last half-century have turned a once risk-taking and heroic Christopher Columbus into an evil emissary of disease and destruction. History is now seen as one-dimensional melodrama in which our contemporary duty is to pick sinners and saints of the past based on our own modern (quite imperfect) perceptions of morality and then judge them worthy of either hagiography or banishment from memory.

And Hanson shares a fact inconvenient to the narrative of those who love to hate America:

[K]nocking down images of Columbus will not change the fact that millions of indigenous people in Central America and Mexico are currently abandoning their ancestral homelands and emigrating northward to quite different landscapes that reflect European and American traditions and political, economic, and cultural values.

3.) Does Yeboah affirm the accurate telling of history? Does Yeboah believe children at every age should be alerted to every serious foible, sin, or moral failing of every human involved in significant historical events or achievements? Should children of every age be taught about MLK Jr.’s significant moral failings? Should children of every age be taught the sordid stories of the abuse of women by John F. Kennedy and his lady-killer brother Ted Kennedy? Should kindergartners be taught that Harvey Milk was a homosexual ephebophile who acted on his sexual interest in teenage boys?

Regarding Yeboah’s concern about the impossibility of “discovering” an already inhabited land: Good teachers should and do explain that “discover” means “to obtain knowledge of something through observation, search, or study.” Benjamin Franklin “discovered” electricity in this sense. James Wilson Marshall “discovered” gold at Sutter’s Mill in this sense. The gold was always there in the ground. Erasmus Jacobs, son of a poor Boer farmer in South Africa “discovered” diamonds along the banks of the Orange River—diamonds that had always been there.

4.) Does Yeboah consider the perspectives of indigenous people about celebrating their histories of extreme violence, theft, genocide, and dehumanization on Indigenous People’s Day?

5.) In her fifth point, Yeboah again presumes a premise she doesn’t attempt to prove: In her fifth rhetorical question, she presumes that American exceptionalism is a myth. But is it? What objective standards or criteria has Yeboah applied to conclude that America is not exceptional?

6.) Yeboah implies that honoring Christopher Columbus’ exploratory achievement and how it transformed the world violates the vision and mission of District 200, which are here set forth:

Our vision is to be an exemplary, student-focused school district that is highly regarded for the competence and character of our students and people, programs, and learning environment.

Our mission is to inspire, encourage, and challenge, and to support all students to reach their highest level of learning and personal development.

Yeboah has yet to make her case that honoring a history-making explorer undermines the development of competence and character, or how it undermines the mission to inspire, encourage, and challenge students to reach their highest level of learning and personal development. Do District 200 taxpayers even know how District 200 distinguishes between good character and bad?

Yeboah’s reference to the vision and mission of District 200 raises other questions:

• How does the sexual integration of restrooms and locker rooms support all students to reach their highest level of personal development and character?

• How does the wildly obscene  (*WARNING*) graphic novel/memoir Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe, which is available in both District 200 high school libraries, foster character and personal development?

• How was the invitation to lesbian activist Robin Stevenson, who promotes cultural approval of both the “LGBT” ideology and the legalized slaughter of the unborn, to speak to 8-11-year-olds at Longfellow Elementary School in Wheaton supposed to foster character and personal development?

• How did the offensive student drawings defacing the walls of Monroe Middle School through positive portrayals of homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation, some accompanied by ignorant and troubling captions, contribute to character development?

In a Facebook post, Yeboah announced she’s all in for “anti-racism,” which everyone should know by now is a euphemism for anti-white racism.

In an upcoming “Table Talk” at Wheaton College, “Topics for White students” include “Invisible Racism” with guest speaker Mary Yeboah.

Yeboah is also a promoter of the  controversial “Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards” that garnered nationwide condemnation, including by National Review.

In a Feb. 7, 2021 Facebook post, Yeboah admits that one of her “favorite scholars” is Tyrone Howard who wrote the book All Students Must Thrive. Howard’s publisher writes that Howard’s book “brings together three frameworks relevant for equity in schools–wellness, critical pedagogy, and critical race theory.”

If there’s any doubt about Yeboah’s “progressive” bona fides, this should dispel it: In 2020, as BLM was destroying cities across the country, Yeboah was part of a “white moms” group in Wheaton that created signs to encourage support–including financial support–for the Black Lives Matter organization, which is hell-bent on destroying the nuclear family and normalizing homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation.

And Yeboah worries that Columbus Day will undermine character development in children? Sheesh

Public schools are no longer places that foster character development or provide the highest level of learning. Get your kids out now.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Wheaton-Illinois-School-Districts-Wokest-Board-Member.mp3

I recently read a very interesting, and brave, editorial from Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. It appeared on AFA’s national news service – One News Now. He points out the contradiction in the efforts to remove statues all across America because of how the culture now views the words or actions of certain individuals which can often cloud how they are remembered today for their larger contributions.

The “woke” liberal culture has now even questioned statues of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and some abolitionists who worked to end slavery because they may have said things in certain ways reflecting their era about race or slaves that are frowned upon today. This cancel culture movement has even questioned Martin Luther King’s teachings and gone after people like Christopher Columbus and George Washington.

Donahue applies this new revisionist view to the homosexual movement. He wonders why corporations went over the top in promoting June as “Pride Month” when so many founders of the Pride movement were child molesters, supportive of child molestation, or other abhorrent behaviors.

For example, Harry Hay who is considered the founder of the modern gay rights movement supported adults having sex with minors stating that “young males would love it.” Hay admitted that he was molested by a 25-year-old adult male when he was 14, referring it as a “most beautiful gift.” He criticized homosexual parade organizers who tried to exclude NAMBLA (the North American Man Boy Love Association which advocates for pedophilia and the repeal of all age of consent laws) stating, “NAMBLA walks with me.” Hay also had connections to the Communist Party including setting up an organization of homosexual communists in the early 1950’s called the Mattachine Society.

Brenda Howard, who organized the first gay pride march in 1970 and was known as the “Mother of Pride” was an open advocate for sadomasochism, bondage, and polyamory.  Larry Kramer, founder of ACT-UP was also an advocate for NAMBLA. Gilbert Baker, the creator of the rainbow flag, was anti-Catholic and also reported to be a member of NAMBLA. Harvey Milk, a San Francisco politician memorialized in a Hollywood movie, and praised by President Barack Obama, was known to have had a live-in relationship with a young, runaway, 16-year-old boy when Milk was in his 30’s.

Donahue opposes the removal of many of our historic figures’ statues but wonders why these morally compromised founders of the gay rights movement are not held to similar standards when their beliefs and actions are far more problematic. “Why is it OK to trash Harry Truman but not Harry Hay?” Donohue asked.

It’s not a pretty subject, but it is a contradiction that our culture does not want to consider as it rushes to embrace an “anything-goes” ethic of sexual behavior.

(Note: In 2008, the Centers for Disease Control reported that homosexual and bisexual males were abused as children at a rate three times higher than heterosexual males. Other studies have found higher rates of childhood abuse among lesbian and bisexual women.)

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

On Friday, December 13, 2019, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported that construction had just begun on a Navy ship named the United States Naval Ship Harvey Milk (USNS Harvey Milk) after the pederast Harvey Milk. You read that right. The U.S. government is honoring an “ephebophile”—that is, an adult male who is sexually attracted to pubescent boys—whose only claims to fame are having had sex with teen boys and men and having been murdered by a disgruntled co-worker. While national memorials to historical figures who engaged in racism are torn down, and the #MeToo movement grows, leftists promote multiple government-funded memorials to a promiscuous homosexual pederast.

Openly homosexual journalist Randy Shilts, author of The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk, wrote about Milk’s sexual relationship with 16-year-old runaway John “Jack” Galen McKinley when Milk was 33 and living in New York City:

Within a few weeks [of his arrival from Maryland], McKinley moved into Milk’s Upper West Side apartment. … Milk kept his sexuality a closely guarded secret at work. Only one person managed to break the barriers between Harvey’s personal and professional life, and it wasn’t by Milk’s own choice. Jim Bruton, a Bache vice-president, met Milk when Harvey approached him for authorization to open an investment account as a guardian for a younger man who was his ward. Bruton … looked Milk sternly in the eye.

“What’s this guardian crap?” he asked. “What you’re really talking about is opening an account for the boy you’ve got living with you. Right?”

… Bruton was surprised to learn that his gregarious colleague had few close friends, lavishing virtually all his affection on his lover, Jack McKinley.

Milk violated New York’s age of consent law with a teenage boy, which constituted a Class E Felony, and our military is honoring him.

Milk, long-deified by the left as a homosexual hero, was the first openly homosexual San Francisco Board Supervisor who, along with Mayor George Moscone, was murdered by colleague Dan White after an unremarkable 10 months in office. Milk was not a martyr for the cause of normalizing sexual deviance—as Hollywood and homosexual activists would have America believe—and Dan White did not murder him because he—White—harbored anti-homosexual bigotry.

Journalist Daniel J. Flynn has been exposing the real Harvey Milk for years, most comprehensively in his 2018 book Cult City: Jim Jones, Harvey Milk, and Ten Days That Shook San Francisco for City Journal, Flynn shares some details about Dan White’s motives for killing Milk that the leftist press likely won’t cover because this information disrupts the deceitful leftist hagiographic Milk mythology:

White, a San Francisco Democrat like Pelosi and his two murder victims, resembled neither a “New Right” figure nor a raging homophobe. Politically, he resembled Dianne Feinstein, who served as White’s mentor on the board of supervisors. … All these years later, Feinstein—not Bill Dannemeyer or Bob Dornan—possesses Dan White’s diary. The association between the two figures upends the narrative portraying White as a right-winger out to settle ideological scores.

White delivered the keynote address at the California Coalition for Handgun Control’s 1977 annual meeting. Like Feinstein, he supported gun control. … As a supervisor, he voted for an aggressive affirmative-action policy that evaluated those in city management by how many minorities advanced under their leadership. On the board, the former cop and fireman essentially served as the representative of the city’s public-employees’ unions. …

The first person White hired in politics was a gay man, who served as his campaign manager and later his chief of staff and business partner. “That was never an issue,” Ray Sloan told me in an interview for Cult City: Jim Jones, Harvey Milk, and 10 Days That Shook San Francisco. “In coordinating his campaign, I don’t think anyone knew or cared if I was gay. … I sort of lived my own life. As time went on, it was clear that he knew. It just didn’t make any difference to him.”

Milk often joined White for coffee or lunch. Unlike other colleagues on the board, Milk attended the christening of White’s son. When Milk introduced the sole legislation authored by him to become law—a sensible ordinance requiring dog owners to clean up after their pets—White seconded it. But after Milk reversed his support for White’s efforts to keep a home for troubled youth from opening in his district, the troubled White reversed his support for a gay-rights measure important to Milk. Milk perhaps never saw White as an ally, but White clearly saw Milk as such, which led to feelings of betrayal.

During White’s brief time in politics, he sided with Milk on the most important issue involving gay rights. He endorsed “No” on Proposition 6, a ballot measure sponsored by California state senator John Briggs seeking to empower local school boards to fire openly gay teachers. White attended the largest gay-rights fundraiser in the history of U.S. politics at the time to mobilize support against Briggs. …

About a week after Prop. 6 went down to defeat, White abruptly offered his resignation from the board of supervisors. Then the public employees who had worked hard to elect him let him know, at times angrily, that they objected to his sudden decision. Just as suddenly, the mercurial politician asked for his job back. Moscone initially welcomed White back on the board, but the mayor changed his mind after Milk lobbied him to seat someone else and encouraged political players in White’s district to jettison his attempt to regain his seat.

White felt betrayed. More important, he felt as though he had betrayed those loyal to him. A petty man nursing a petty grievance over a petty office murdered Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk.

“I know why Dan White killed Milk,” board colleague Quentin Kopp explained in an interview for Cult City. “Because Milk was lobbying Moscone not to weaken and not reappoint White to the board. That got around.” Dianne Feinstein, a fellow Democrat who nevertheless disagreed with Kopp on much, agrees with him here. “This had nothing to do with anybody’s sexual orientation,” she reflected ten years ago. “It had to do with getting back his position.” (emphasis added)

The federal government, the state of California, public schools, and now the military have all been duped by Big “Gay” into honoring a deeply dishonorable man. As with Matthew Shephard’s murder, homosexual activists have misrepresented the murder of Milk in order to exploit it for their pernicious political and social purposes.

Navy ships are named by the Secretary of the Navy, who is a political appointee. The blackguard who named the USNS Harvey Milk, Raymond Edmund Mabus Jr., was an Obama appointee with no military background who named another Navy ship the USNS Cesar Chavez.

In 2009, Barack Obama posthumously awarded pederast Milk the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which is awarded for “especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.” Then beginning in 2010, the state of California began observing Harvey Milk Day on his birthday, May 22. In 2014, the United States Postal Service honored Milk with a commemorative postage stamp. But, for leftists, that’s not nearly enough recognition for Milk’s meritorious contribution to the normalization of sodomy.

In 2016, when the Navy first announced that a ship would be named after Milk, his homosexual nephew Stuart Milk said that naming a ship after his uncle “will further send a green light to all the brave men and women who serve our nation that honesty, acceptance and authenticity are held up among the highest ideals of our military.”

Is “authenticity” really one of the highest ideals of the military, and what exactly does such a claim mean? What if a 13-year-old authentically identifies as a 20-year-old? Would she be permitted to enlist in the Navy?

Is “acceptance” one of the military’s highest ideals? Acceptance of what? Everything? Every sexual desire? What if an admiral authentically loves his brother and is in a committed erotic relationship with him? Should the military accept that? After all, love is love.

This same ubiquitous nephew, spoke at a 2012 “ceremonial unveiling of the first street in the nation” named after a known pederast, saying his uncle “fell in love with the beautiful boys here.” Is that what our military now honors?

With his customary stoicism but this time tinged with a barely discernible melancholy, my Navy veteran father John Blackburn who served on the USS Ulvert M. Moore during WWII said, “This isn’t the country I fought for.”

No, it’s not. Our government now praises the perverse, celebrates the corrupt, and decorates the depraved.

Why aren’t Americans beating down the doors of their U.S. Senators and Representatives, demanding that no military vessel be named after an adult man who had sex with minors? I’d like to hear members of Congress defend naming a ship after a pederast. And if the Navy won’t put the brakes on this offensive project, then, in the service of authenticity, the ship should be renamed the USNS Harvey Milk—Pederast.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to express to your federal officials how offensive it is to name a Navy ship after a man who engaged in felonious sexual acts with a minor boy.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Harvey-Milk.mp3

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

On August 15, I wasted a half hour of my day by agreeing to be interviewed by Chicago Tribune reporter Hannah Leone for an article she was writing on the “LGBTQ” school indoctrination bill that Governor J.B. Pritzker recently signed into law and which takes effect July 1, 2020. Before I talk about her article, I should explain more about the interview.

Leone asked what my primary concern is with the law, which is a difficult question because there are so many problems with it. I responded that my primary concern is that our culture-makers—including the Tribune, lawmakers, and “educators”—never discuss the arguable presuppositions on which this law depends, and which “progressives” simply assume are inarguably true.

Those presuppositions are that homosexuality and cross-sex identification are ontologically analogous to race and, therefore, the actions that emerge from homosexual feelings and the desire to be the opposite sex are morally benign or good. I told her that if “progressives” are asked to identify the specific points of correspondence between homosexuality or cross-sex identification per se and race per se, they come up empty.

I further said that “IFI supports the teaching of historically significant cultural contributions. We object, however, to teachers identifying the sexual predilections of historically significant cultural contributors and to basing the selection of cultural contributions on the sexual predilections of cultural contributors.”

She then asked me,

What about movements/milestones like the stonewall riots, HIV/AIDS epidemic, don’t ask/don’t tell, and legalization of same-sex marriage?

I responded,

Because of the complex and controversial nature of these cultural events, they should not be presented in elementary school at all. In middle and high school, they should be presented only if teachers are willing to spend equal time exploring fairly, neutrally, and comprehensively both sides of debates regarding whether these movements have served the culture in positive ways or corrupted culture. Such presentations must include discussions of foundational presuppositions. If teachers are unwilling to present the best resources on both sides of the debate or unwilling or unable to discuss neutrally foundational presuppositions, then they have a pedagogical obligation not to introduce the topics. If they present only affirming views of these movements, they transform education into indoctrination. If they believe reading criticism of these movements will make some students too uncomfortable, they should avoid the topics. If they believe students are too young to understand the foundational presuppositions, then the topics are age-inappropriate. I would argue that most public school teachers are intellectually ill-equipped to address the foundational presuppositions, which are critical to the entire project mandated by this law.”

I also addressed the reason we don’t see leftists fighting for the roles and contributions of polyamorists and zoophiles to be taught to children and teens, which is that lawmakers and “educators” understand that teaching about their roles and contributions would contribute to normalizing polyamory and zoophilia, which they don’t want to do because they’ve concluded polyamory and zoophilia are immoral. And there you have it: Lawmakers and “educators” are imposing their moral beliefs about homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation on Illinois children.

Leone initially told me her article would be published sometime the following week. When it wasn’t, I asked her when it would be coming out. On Monday night, Sept.2, she told me it would be out Tuesday and told me this:

We had a limited amount of space to work with and your interview did not get included, but your perspective still helped inform the article, so thanks for your time anyway.

Then Monday, I read her front-page, lengthy, 2,136-word article. For perspective, the average newspaper article is between 600-1,500 words.

Here are just some of the nuggets of Fool’s Gold in Leone’s biased advocacy masquerading as a news story:

1. The Inclusive Curriculum Law, signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Aug. 9, mandates that by the time students finish eighth grade, public schools must teach them about contributions to state and U.S. history made by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Note that the law mandates that indoctrination must begin before eighth grade. And it must include contributions to state history made by homosexuals and opposite-sex impersonators, which tells you that the contributions chosen will not be based on historical or cultural significance but on the sexual predilections of contributors.

2. “This law will give more young people the opportunity to see themselves in those who came before us and recognize they are not alone,” [Chicago mayor] Lightfoot said in a statement to the Tribune.

What about the young people who experience other types of powerful, unchosen, seemingly intractable subjective, internal desires that they choose to act upon? What if they or their many parents identify as polyamorous? What if they identify as kinksters or zoophiles? Should people from those marginalized communities have an opportunity to see themselves in those who came before them and recognize they are not alone?

When I pose this question to “progressives,” they get all judgy-judgy, huffing indignantly that it’s offensive to compare homosexuality or opposite-sex impersonation to zoophilia or any other sexual identity they view as disordered or immoral. Their indignation reveals that the Leftists who run the Springfield swamp and public schools have, indeed, arrived at ontological and moral conclusions about homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation and treat them as indisputable facts. And now they’re imposing their subjective beliefs on all Illinois families who have the misfortune of not having a choice on where their children are educated.

President of the Illinois Association of Regional Superintendents of Schools, Mark Klaisner (who carries around a bit of baggage), who is “Helping compile resources for schools to draw from,” whines about the possibility that the “vagueness” of the law will result in schools not indoctrinating enough:

3. Being that vague could mean a simple unit or a few lessons at one grade level in the school, which I think is insufficient.

Can’t have positive portrayals of what many view as sexual perversion be foisted on other people’s children for a mere unit. That’s not nearly enough time for propaganda to take effect.

Imagine an “educator” saying, “a simple unit or a few lessons about polyamory or Genetic Sexual Attraction at one grade level is insufficient.”

Even more troubling is feckless Klaisner’s view on the appropriate age at which to introduce children to ideas about homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation:

4. For younger students, it may make sense to introduce names and fewer details, and wait until around third grade to mention someone identified as gay or transgender. (emphasis added)

Third grade—an age at which children are wholly incapable of understanding the conservative and “progressive” foundational assumptions about homosexuality and opposite-sex identification—is the age by which Klaisner wants these topics introduced.

Michelle Vallet, mother of a daughter who “identifies” as (which in plain language means pretends to be) a boy, disagrees with Klaisner:

5. Vallet said she doesn’t think it’s ever too early to bring up [these topics]…. Normalizing these identities early is key.

There you have it in plain, unguarded English. The goal of Leftists is to use curricula, taxpayer money, and captive audiences to normalize abnormal, disordered sexuality.

Leone writes that one of the law’s sponsors, State Representative Anna Moeller (D-Elgin), is not yet satisfied:

6. [T]hough passing the law reflects an advancement in civil rights, more still needs to be done, Moeller said.

Then Moeller trots out the tired and absurd comparison of homosexuality and opposite-sex identification to race:

In the way schools have become required to teach about African Americans, Latinos, women and other marginalized communities, now they’ll be required to include… some discussion of LGBT.

Moeller doesn’t explain in what specific ways homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation per se are like race or biological sex per se. Nor does she say whether she ultimately wants schools to be required to discuss all “marginalized communities” or just the ones whose volitional acts she deems morally acceptable.

Like Moeller, Garcia High School biology teacher Bryan Meeker has disturbing hopes for students:

7. Meeker said he’d also love to see students in English classes reading works by Harvey Milk, a San Francisco politician and one of the first openly gay elected officials in the United States before his assassination in 1978.

Yikes! A high school teacher wants the works of an ephebophile (i.e., an adult who is sexually attracted to teens) to be taught in government schools in order to change the perception of teens toward homosexuality? Harvey Milk was a “short-tempered demagogue” and ephebophile who exploited multiple suffering teen boys for his own sexual gratification. And he was not a martyr for the cause of “equality.” He was murdered for “petty” political reasons by a supporter of “gay rights.” Milk was also a friend and promoter of cult leader Jim Jones. Are schools now going to teach positively about the “roles and contributions” of ephebophiles and murderous cult leaders?

Perhaps high school teachers should teach Cult City: Jim Jones, Harvey Milk, and 10 Days That Shook San Francisco. And English teachers who teach The Laramie Project should include as a companion piece The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard written by homosexual journalist Stephen Jimenez.

The only “opponent” of the law Leone cited in her article was retiring State Representative Margo McDermed (R-Mokena) who voted against the “LGBTQ” school indoctrination bill but only for fiscal reasons:

8. “It’s not … that it’s not a good cause…. I vote against mandates no matter how worthy the topic may be, and of course this is a worthy topic.”

With Republican friends like this, conservatives definitely don’t need enemies.

Leone reveals her bias when she refers to “milestones such as marriage equality.” “Marriage equality” is a Leftist term. Conservatives would refer to “marriage redefinition.” Defining marriage in law as the union of two people of opposite sexes is no more evidence of inequality than is defining marriage in law as the union of only two persons or of only persons not closely related by blood, definitions which exclude plural and incestuous marriage.

Experience both in my current job and my former job in the writing center at Deerfield High School has taught me that many—perhaps most—”progressives” violate with regularity their purported commitments to tolerance, respect for diversity, inclusivity, and critical thinking. They substitute epithet-hurling for argumentation and evidence, and they censor dissenting views. As everyone knows, this is most common when it comes to issues involving homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation. What is remarkable and troubling is that the hatred of progressives is virulent and directed at those who hold theologically orthodox views, including those who are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Orthodox Jews.

My views on these issues are historical, mainstream theologically orthodox views. They are not fringe positions. I’m just willing to express them publicly. And why do so few Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestants express their views as boldly and publicly as I do (and as progressives express theirs)? They recoil from being falsely called “haters” or losing their jobs. Toxic progressivism has led to religious discrimination of a kind never seen in America, and it’s getting worse.

It’s also remarkable and troubling that the Chicago Tribune seems so incurious about these topics. There are brilliant men and women writing about these issues eloquently, intelligently, and piquantly. I suspect most Trib writers and editors (and public school teachers and Springfield swampsters) haven’t heard of them, haven’t read their material, and don’t have any interest in interviewing them for articles, book talks, or festivals.

Perhaps the Trib’s incuriosity is bolstered by the bias evidenced by news reporters like Hannah Leone who must have thought I just tumbled off the proverbial turnip truck. She seemed to think I would believe that in a front-page, 2,100-word article, she had insufficient space to include anything from our interview or any comment from any other conservative opponent.

I’m not sure how my “perspective helped inform the article” as Leone claimed it did unless she’s referring to this one sentence about opposing positions: “But some detractors see the state forcing local districts to promote an agenda conflicts with their personal or religious beliefs.” If so, wow.

Word to presumptuous lawmakers and propagandists who identify as educators and journalists: It is not the role of government-employed teachers to make students feel good about their subjective sexual feelings—not even those sexualities that Leftists have deemed the darling identities ‘o’ the day.

Word to conservative parents: GET OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS!

Word to churches: Help parents get their children out.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Toxic-Schools.mp3

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

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

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

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

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

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

Why Disney?

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

No, not Jerry Sandusky, but good guess.

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

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

But you can call him Harvey Milk.

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

And a “progressive” martyr was born.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Years later, McKinley committed suicide.

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

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

The incident was swept under the rug.

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

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

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

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

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

God bless America?

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

**Caution: Reader discretion advised.**

A study conducted by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas compared the “social, emotional, and relational” outcomes for children raised in different family structures, including children raised by heterosexual parents and those raised in homes in which the parents had been in homosexual relationships. It found that the children raised in homes in which parents had had homosexual relationships were disadvantaged in numerous ways.

Regnerus’ research has come under heavy fire for flawed test construction which, critics charge, is due to bias. The central criticisms include the following:

1. Regnerus’ conclusions are biased because he follows a faith tradition that teaches that volitional homosexual acts are not moral.
2. Regnerus’ study was funded by two conservative organizations.
3. Regnerus compared apples to oranges. That is, he compared the social, emotional, and relational outcomes for children raised within intact heterosexual family structures to those for children raised by parents who had had a homosexual relationship. As William Saletan for Slate Magazine explained, “[Regnerus] compared children of intact mom-and-dad families not to the tiny subset of kids raised by same-sex couples (which was statistically nonviable) but to the much bigger sample of kids with a parent who had at some point engaged in a gay relationship.”

The scorched earth assault on Regnerus’ study was precipitated by two events: a petition signed by 200 academicians, surely motivated only by their professional concern for the ethical integrity of academic research (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

The other precipitating event was a formal letter of complaint sent to the Director of Research Integrity at the University of Texas by a notorious homosexual activist from New York City, Scott Rose (aka Scott Rosenweig or Rosensweig), who is known for his anti-Christian hatred, obscenity-laced screeds, and misogyny.

Rose likes to think of himself as an “investigative journalist,” and the “neutral” press is only too happy to play along. Rose’s role in the Regnerus saga needs to be more fully known and his dubious character more fully exposed.

Scott Rose: toxic shock

I first learned about Rose last year while working with a parent group in the Anoka-Hennepin school district in Minneapolis who were trying valiantly to establish school policy that would prevent teachers from using curricula and their classrooms to advance their personal moral and political views of homosexuality. Rose sent a letter to the Anoka-Hennepin superintendent in which he called the parents group as well as Minnesota Family Council, “loud-mouthed anti-gay bigot adults.”

Then last month, Rose contacted me incensed that I had posted an article critical of Harvey Milk. At one point in our email exchange I said, “My hope and prayer is that someday you will come to know Christ, who can free you from bondage to sin and give you peace,” to which Rose responded, “You come at me with your condescending Jesus bull****. You cannot possibly have any close friends who are Jewish, because if you did, you would know not to come at a Jewish person with your Jesus bull****.”

Even more disturbing — bordering on pathological — is the blog Rose had which was titled “Anti-Gay Bigotry Scares Me.” He took it down within a week after our email exchange during which I quoted his own shocking words from his blog to him. I suspect Rose took down his blog because he didn’t want his true nature to be revealed to the public and the credulous press.

Rose now writes for The New Civil Rights Movement, whose name parasitically exploits the African American fight for civil rights and depends on the offensive and nonsensical comparison of homosexuality to race. You can, however, read two of his posts, (HERE and HERE), that were available online as recently as June 10, 2012.  (Caution: disturbing images and language) These posts are ironic coming from a card-carrying member of the “no-name-calling” crowd.

The first one is an execrable piece of calumny written about the brilliant Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage who endures the most pernicious ad hominem attacks in the thankless job of defending marriage.

The second of Rose’s blog posts is a repellent attack on Laurie Thompson, one of the parents in the Minneapolis parents group that works tirelessly for the good of children and the integrity of public education.

I apologize to Maggie Gallagher, Laurie Thompson, and IFI readers for the obscene, hateful, misogynistic content of these posts, but the public needs to know the true character of the man who is now trying not just to challenge Regnerus’ research but to assassinate the character of anyone who dares to dissent from Rose’s beliefs about homosexuality.

A few concluding ruminations on social science research

The viciousness, speed, and intensity of the attacks from academicians on Regnerus’ research seem unusual, particularly as compared to the lack of criticism leveled at research whose findings the homosexual community likes. I wonder why 200 academicians didn’t criticize the deeply flawed lesbian study that came out in 2010. As Andrew Ferguson wrote in the Weekly Standard:

The limitations of Regnerus’s study compare favorably with the shortcomings found routinely in the same-sex literature. It does no credit to the guild that researchers have choked on Regnerus’s paper while happily swallowing dozens of faulty studies over the last 20 years—because, you can’t help but think, those studies were taken as confirming the “no difference” dogma. “If the Regnerus study is to be thrown out,” wrote the Canadian family economist Douglas Allen in a statement supporting Regnerus, “then practically everything else [in the literature] has to go with it.” 

Social science research can be helpful, but most of us who are non-social scientists and non-statisticians won’t be able to evaluate the quality of research studies. And in this highly politicized, pro-homosexual climate, it’s difficult to determine the reliability of even assessments of the quality of the research. 

I wonder if academicians are as suspect of homosexuality-related research conducted by those who believe volitional homosexual acts are inherently moral as they are of those who believe it’s inherently immoral.

Finally, social science research has limited utility and certainly can’t be used as any ultimate arbiter of morality. If, for example, social science research were to show that children raised by parents who were biological siblings fared just as well as children raised by non-siblings, I don’t think society would conclude that sibling incest is morally defensible—at least not yet.

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.

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.