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!

FROGS! GET OUT OF THE WATER! IT’S BOILING!

A lesbian activist who promotes cultural approval of both the “LGBT” ideology and the legalized slaughter of the unborn was invited to speak to 8-11-year-olds at Longfellow Elementary School in Wheaton, Illinois, home of America’s most prestigious evangelical college, Wheaton College; evangelical Christian publishing company Crossway Books; and approximately 45 churches. If this could happen in Wheaton, Illinois, it could happen anywhere.

The kinda, sorta good news is that the event was canceled the day before it was to take place in early October. The bad news is the school hopes to reschedule it. According to District 200 spokesperson Erica Loiacono,

The day before the author’s visit, a parent contacted Longfellow Administration with concerns about the process we utilize to inform parents about author visits and the contents of the presentation and promotion. It was at that time Administration was informed that the school did not communicate to Longfellow parents information about the content of the book being presented and promoted by the author…. Parents were only informed of the author’s visit, not the content of the book, presentation and promotion…. We look forward to speaking with the author and discussing the possibility of scheduling a visit to our school community in the future.

The author, Robin Stevenson, is on a book tour—you know, the thing authors go on to promote and sell their books. The particular book she is promoting right now is Kid Activists: True Tales of Childhood from Champions of Change, which tells “childhood stories through kid-friendly texts and full-color cartoon illustrations” of activists, including Harvey Milk, the infamous homosexual pederast and friend of murderous cult leader Jim Jones, and “Janet” Mock, a biological man who through cross-sex hormone-doping and extensive surgical body modification successfully passes as a woman.

Stevenson has also written Pride Colors, a colorful board book for children from ages 0-2 that “highlights #LGBTQIA+ families in a positive, glittery light,” and teaches babies the “meaning behind each color in the Pride flag.” And for 9-14-year-olds, she has Pride: Celebrating Diversity & Community, which glossily details the history of the movement to normalize sexual deviance.

Stevenson’s devaluation of the human person extends beyond homosexuality and cross-sex identification. She devalues humans in the womb as well and seeks to indoctrinate children with her twisted views. Stevenson’s book for children ages 12 and up, My Body My Choice: The Fight for Abortion Rights, is about the “long fight for abortion rights” that “is being picked up by a new generation of courageous, creative and passionate activists.” The School Library Journal highly recommends it saying, “Readers will appreciate and find value in the colorful photographs and illustrations, quotes, and comics provided and will finish the guide feeling empowered. Youth will be armed with concrete tips and advice on how they can help fight against abortion stigma.”

Can’t have anyone stigmatizing the slaughter of tiny vulnerable humans. No siree, can’t have that.

Stevenson chastises the superintendent and school board of Wheaton District 200, in an open letter on her website:

[B]eginning next year, Illinois public schools will be required to teach history lessons that include the roles and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in U.S. history. But schools should not need to be legislated to be inclusive. Many schools are already working hard to provide a safe and supportive environment for students to be themselves and to encourage all students to respect diversity and human rights….

In choosing to cancel the presentation…. You legitimized a concern rooted in homophobia, gave this priority over the wishes of the school administration and staff who had requested the visit.

Six thoughts about Stevenson’s thoughts:

1.) Wheaton parents should ascertain exactly which school administrators and staff requested that Stevenson be invited to speak. The identities of government employees who make these kinds of decisions should not be cloaked in secrecy.

2.) Commitments to “inclusivity” do not require schools to ignore moral precepts. I don’t see “progressives” clamoring to have the roles and contributions of polyamorists, kinksters, or zoophiles included in curricula. Why is that? Have no polyamorists, kinksters, or zoophiles contributed anything of value to society? Leftists believe known-kinkster Alfred Kinsey made significant contributions to society. Maybe in the service of inclusivity, schools should share his kinkster predilections with elementary school students. Or could it be that “progressives” believe only their moral precepts should dictate which sexual predilections must be shared with students?

3.) Assuring the safety of students does not require affirming all their feelings and behavioral choices, nor do school administrators (or likely Stevenson) believe it does.

4.) Regarding schools’ provision of a “supportive” environment for students to be “themselves”: Are government schools really obligated to “support” all the feelings—including all the sexual feelings—of all students or just those feelings approved by “progressives”? What does being “themselves” even mean? Does it mean that all powerful, persistent, seemingly intractable feelings determine both “identity” and morality? If so, the “LGBTQIAP+” community has split wide open a Pandora’s box of trouble.

5.) “Respect for diversity” is a deceitful slogan. “Diversity” per se is neither intrinsically good nor bad. Diversity simply means difference or variety, and not all differences are respect-worthy. What Stevenson really means is that students should be taught to approve of homosexual acts and cross-sex identification, but no government employee—in his or her professional role—has the right to teach other people’s children that.

6.) Christian disapproval of homosexuality and cross-sex identification is no more rooted in fear or hatred of persons than is Christian disapproval of adultery, fornication, or porn use. I wonder how “safe” and “supported” conservative students feel when Stevenson calls them homophobic.

On Saturday, Stevenson tweeted this:

Were parents specifically warned that not all the activists in the book [that she is selling] were cis and straight? No, and this should not be necessary.

There you have it, folks, the arrogance of leftists who refuse to respect the rights of parents who don’t want their young children exposed to leftist views of homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation.

Stevenson is a proselyte for cultural approval of homosexuality, the science-denying “trans” ideology, and the legal right of women to have their offspring slaughtered, but who does the culture deem the bad guys in this scenario? The bad guys are any Wheaton parents who object to Stevenson preaching to their children. “Bigot” and “hater” growl Wheaton leftists on social media in the mellifluous tones of tolerance to which conservatives have become accustomed.

One Wheaton mom posted this on Wheaton Moms & Families Facebook page:

Wheaton doesn’t need to be the bigoted community it was 20-30 years ago. Times are changing, families are evolving but love is the ONLY thing that is remaining consistent. I’d rather my child learn about a gay rights pioneer and activist instead of Christopher Columbus who was a murderer and rapist.

(I’ll set aside her disturbing admiration for Harvey Milk who, as an adult, sexually abused teenage boys.)

Is she suggesting that Christians are bigots and that affirming Scripture is unloving? If so, that raises the question, is she bigoted and unloving for harshly condemning beliefs that are central to the identities of Bible-believing Christians?

As Christians know from Christ’s example, genuine love—as opposed to the treacly stuff that passes for love today—does not entail approval of all feelings, beliefs, and volitional acts of others. Every parent knows this as well.

Genuine love is inseparable from truth. Genuine love requires knowing what is good and true, and desiring that for others even when they desire that which is destructive.

A 2018 Wheaton North High School graduate who currently attends Emerson College wrote this on the Wheaton Moms & Families Facebook page,

PARENTS, by rebuking and establishing that people that live differently from you are dirty and bad and deviant to you children…. You are creating ignorant children, because ignorance is LEARNED.”

She provided no evidence that any parent is telling their children that those who choose to embrace a homosexual or cross-sex identity “are dirty or bad or deviant” people. There is a difference between saying ideas are false or behavioral choices are wrong or deviant, and saying people are “dirty and bad and deviant.” By rebuking people who live differently than this college student does—people like theologically orthodox Christians—is she saying they are “dirty and bad”?

This college student made one point with which I would agree: Ignorance is learned.

Another Wheaton mom responded to the comment, “Thank God [the event] was canceled,” by saying, “you are a horrible hater.” In the upside-down “progressive” world of self-righteous and hollow claims about tolerance, love, and respect for diversity, opposition to a pro-feticide, pro-homosexuality lesbian activist promoting her book to elementary school children is a sign of hatred.

Other “progressive” scolds sniff that Stevenson wasn’t even going to talk about Harvey Milk, but that’s beside the point. First, she was shilling her book—a book the contents of which many parents would find objectionable.

Second, many parents believe that anyone who affirms homoeroticism as intrinsically good and places her homoerotic attraction at the center of her identity is an inappropriate role model for their young children. Government schools have no right to treat those parents’ beliefs and feelings any differently than the beliefs and feelings of leftists.

While culturally regressive parents find conservative beliefs on the nature and morality of volitional homosexual acts and cross-sex impersonation “bigoted” and “hateful,” others find leftist beliefs bigoted and hateful. If leftist ontological and moral assumptions are wrong, promoting them is neither enlightened nor loving. And if government schools may not present conservative moral positions to captive audiences of young children, because leftists view them as false and destructive, then government schools should not present leftist moral positions to young captive audiences, because conservatives view them as false and destructive.

(This is the point in discussions on “LGBT” issues when regressives, rubbing their hands together with a “gotcha” gleam in their eyes, wind up and toss in the manifestly dumb analogy comparing skin color to homosexual attraction and cross-sex identification. So, once more for the analogically challenged: There are zero points of correspondence between skin color per se, which is 100% heritable, immutable in all cases, and has no constituent behavioral features, and homosexual attraction or cross-sex identification, which are constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts.)

Now back to the umbrage of leftists about the cancellation of Robin Stevenson’s misbegotten visit: Let’s imagine for a moment that Longfellow Elementary School were to invite an author to talk to young children about activism. Some of her books, replete with colorful comics, promote the views of Princeton University bioethicist Peter Singer who favors the legalization of infanticide for defective babies. Some of her books advocate for the “civil right” of polyamorists to marry as many people as they love and for consenting relatives of the same sex to marry each other (love is love, ya know). In another book, she pleads for the right of those who identify as amputees to socially and surgically “transition.”

Or let’s imagine that Longfellow Elementary School were to invite an author who has written books that promote the right of the unborn to be protected from slaughter, the right of girls and women to be free of the presence of biological men in their private spaces, the right of children to be raised by a mother and a father, and that promote the view that marriage has a nature central to which is sexual differentiation? What if this author’s books included profiles of Abby Johnson, former Planned Parenthood director/now pro-life activist; abortion survivor and pro-life activist Gianna Jessen; Walt Heyer, former cross-sex identifier who has now detransitioned; Katy Faust, who was raised by two lesbians and opposes same-sex marriage; and Ryan T. Anderson, an activist for true (i.e., sexually-differentiated) marriage? To be inclusive of diverse perspectives would “progressive” parents approve of their 9-year-old children attending a presentation by such an author? Should conscientious objectors to such a speaker be publicly vilified as bigots and haters?

Christians are commanded by God to train up their children in the way they should go. That cannot happen in institutions that seek to cultivate love for acts that God detests. Conservative parents must exit these bubbling cauldrons of witches’ brew, formerly known as schools, before their children are boiled alive.

Here in Illinois, as in California, New Jersey, and Colorado, it is no longer merely possible that young children with impressionable minds and tender hearts will be exposed to positive images and ideas about sexual deviance. Thanks to the bill passed by regressive lawmakers and signed into law by Illinois’ feckless governor, J.B. Pritzker, it is now mandatory that this indoctrination takes place.

Parents must exit government schools, and churches must facilitate that exit. For those families who, for a variety of reasons, cannot homeschool, churches must either create affordable, distinctly Christian schools, or make funds available to church members who want to send their children to existing Christian schools but can’t afford the often cost-prohibitive tuition.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Longfellow-3.mp3

---

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

-and, please-

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-

 

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.