The rise of the LGBTQ movement has turned the tables in American culture. Say anything even mildly critical of LGBTQs and it can cost you your livelihood. But while it’s powerful, the LGBTQ movement is also the most sensitive social movement in the country.

Somewhere along the way, the month of June was designated Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer (LGBTQ) Pride month. Friends, we must beware the perversion that boasts in this kind of pride.

Still, it is celebrated all over the country by governments, businesses, etc. The colors of the rainbow are used to signify the LGBTQ movement. Parades commemorating it go on in many places. There is no question that the LGBTQ movement is mainstream America now.

In fact, this group has power that exceeds its numbers. It has been generally accepted for decades that the LGBTQ group represents 2.7% of the population. If you mix in Millennials, that percentage goes to 4.5%, according to Gallup.

Whatever the percentage is, this group has banded together to become one of the most powerful political forces in our time. They control the entertainment industry as well, allowing for only positive portrayals on television and movies. And despite being only 4.5% of the population, on prime-time television nearly 9% of all characters are LGBTQ. No other group can command such treatment.

The rise of the LGBTQ movement has turned the tables in American culture. Before the 1990s, homosexuality was generally considered abnormal. Certainly not something to be proud of. It was seen as shameful. My, how the times have changed. Today the only ones shamed are those who dare speak out in favor of traditional moral roles of men and women. Say anything even mildly critical of LGBTQs and it can cost you your livelihood.

Remember back in 2014 when a man named Michael Sam was selected in the NFL draft? Because he was the first openly gay player drafted, the media made a big deal out of it. When he was drafted, the mouth-to-mouth kiss with his boyfriend was shown on ESPN live.

A day after this happened, I read the following on a website:

“Miami Dolphins defensive back Don Jones tweeted ‘omg’ and ‘horrible’ in reaction to the ESPN video and then was swiftly fined an undisclosed amount and suspended from team activities until he completed ‘sensitivity training.’ Jones subsequently deleted the tweets, made his Twitter account private, and issued a public apology to Sam, calling his biased comments about the gay player ‘inappropriate.'”

This is what I mean by costing a person his or her livelihood if you say anything critical about homosexuality. A Miami Dolphins player said what millions of Americans were thinking and he was fined, suspended, and sent to educational “training.”

The LGBTQ movement, while powerful, is also the most sensitive social movement in the country. Make any indication of disapproval and you get labeled a “bigot” or a “hater” and publicly shamed. It’s really scary for a lot of Americans who are forced to attend corporate “diversity training,” which is code for force-feeding the LGBTQ agenda on them.

The truth is the LGBTQ activists have basically conquered the Western world. The only thing they lack is shutting down the Christian church, which still believes that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible teaches as much. Read Romans, Chapter 1.

The Scripture says this behavior is unnatural, immoral, and unhealthy. Christian or not, everyone pretty much knows this, even if they are afraid to say so publicly. God made male for female sexually. As for the transgendered, they have serious issues that cause them profound confusion. It’s really tragic.

While Bruce Jenner may think he is a woman, the rest of us should not be told we must pretend Bruce Jenner is a woman or else we hate Bruce Jenner.

Related to this entire issue, I urge you to be aware of the “Equality Act” legislation now pending in the U.S. Congress. I don’t have space for all the details here, but if passed by Congress it would force the LGBTQ agenda on all Americans using the full power of federal government.

It’s an extremely dangerous piece of legislation. Democrats have already passed it in the House; but at least for now, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed to block it in that body. And President Donald Trump has vowed to veto it should it ever make it to his desk.

But be watchful, friends. Call your two senators and insist that they vote “no” on the so-called “Equality Act.” The pride that produced it is really nothing to boast about.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators to urge him/her to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.” If you know the name of your local official, you can also call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask the operator to connect you with his/her office to leave a message.

The politically correct or “progressive” crowd found a new target this week: outspoken Christian and Super Bowl-winning coach Tony Dungy.

When asked about “out and proud” football player Michael Sam, the former NFL coach said he would not have drafted Sam had he still been coaching. “I wouldn’t have [drafted] him,” said Dungy. “Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it.  It’s not going to be totally smooth … things will happen.”

For this comment, ESPN commentator Keith Olbermann named Dungy the “Worst Person in the World” on Monday night. Condemnations of Dungy came from all over.

This is where the “progressive” movement is. If you hold a view that is not in agreement with theirs, you are to be demonized by them, the progressives, who, ironically, don’t believe in demons.

Why do they do this? Because they, the progressives, consider themselves morally superior to those of us who hold traditional values even though, again, ironically, progressives don’t believe in moral values unless they define them. They moralize against those who promote morality.

The progressive movement is out to destroy our country as it has existed. It is against patriotism. It is against religion in general and is in particular hostile to evangelical Christianity and traditional Catholicism. It is against borders. It is against capitalism. Dare I go on? Sure, why not?

It is for high taxation and government control and regulation of almost everything. It wants people depending on government so they can be controlled. It believes government debt is good. It is against our constitutional Bill of Rights, in particular the First and Second Amendments. It is for abortion on demand even through nine months of pregnancy. It wants to downgrade the American military. It rejects the idea that Western civilization is superior to other civilizations. And it most certainly is for promoting the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender movement and punishing people who dare speak against it.

Basically, what I have just described is the platform of the modern-day Democratic Party and the philosophy/agenda of much of the New York/Washington, DC, liberal media, Hollywood and most university campuses. When Barack Obama said he wanted to “fundamentally transform” America, what he was saying to his fellow hardcore progressives was: “I’ve got the wrecking ball ready.”

Sexually, God made man for woman and woman for man. It’s obvious. It’s natural. Progressives can’t stand this. So they are always trying to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality or elevate homosexuality over heterosexuality. When someone like Dungy makes a comment that can in any way be seen as challenging this narrative, then progressives believe that person must be immediately discredited or publicly shamed – no matter the truth of what he is saying.

By the way, having been a sports reporter for a few years I’ve been in many football locker rooms where the players walk around naked or half-naked, changing clothes and going in and out of the showers. Putting a man like Sam, who says he is sexually attracted to men, in with all that beefcake seems unfair to the straight players and a distraction to Sam. Would you put a heterosexual man in the locker room/showers with all the female cheerleaders? Would you tell the girl cheerleaders who objected to this man being in the locker room that they needed to end their bigoted and sexist attitude and treat the man with respect?

Tony Dungy will probably survive being the “worst person in the world.” But the fact that he is in the crosshairs of the PC Gestapo over this comment is chilling to free speech and free thinking.

It’s ironic that the people who now scream the loudest about tolerance have become the least tolerant among us.

This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.

“Foolish: lacking good sense or judgment; unwise”

The Chicago Tribune must have an expansive anti-discrimination hiring policy that prohibits discrimination based on foolishness because the paper hires a boatload of foolish writers. The feckless Trib writer ‘o’ the week is sports writer Steve Rosenbloom who penned an embarrassing piece about the admired football coach Tony Dungy.  To be clear, it is Rosenbloom—not Dungy—who should be embarrassed.

Rosenbloom was in high self-righteous dudgeon over what Dungy said when asked if he would have drafted openly homosexual NFL player Michael Sam. Dungy replied, “I wouldn’t have taken him. Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it.”

If Rosenbloom had taken a deep breath and done some research, he would have discovered that the “it” in Dungy’s statement, which has caused such moral indignation among the “tolerant,” did not refer to  Sam’s sexual predilections. Rather, “it” referred to the distraction of the media circus that is following Sam, including a now-postponed reality television program for the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN).

Yes, Dungy wanted to avoid the very distraction that led Sam himself to postpone his reality show. In a May 16 statement, Sam’s agent Cameron Weiss said that an agreement had been reached with the OWN network to postpone the show in order “to ensure no distractions to his teammates.”

Rosenbloom’s presumptuous and error-ridden editorial beckons for a smidge of rebuttal—that is, a small rebuttal to small-minded, superficial thoughts common to the Left.

First, Rosenbloom compares Michael Sam to convicted dog-fighter Michael Vick, claiming that in Dungy’s world, “a man who wants to love another man is worse than a man who supports killing dogs for sport.”

Well, if by Dungy’s “world,” Rosenbloom means orthodox, historic Christendom, he’s wrong. Orthodox Christians have no opposition whatsoever to men loving men. In fact, orthodox Christians deeply treasure loving relationships between men. What orthodox Christians believe is wrong is sexual activity between men which corrupts their love for one another.

Rosenbloom then asks the rhetorical question, “Wasn’t [America] founded on equality?”

Such a free-floating, ambiguous, decontextualized rhetorical question is at best meaningless, at worst devious. The equality our Founding Fathers sought to enshrine in both our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (which “progressives” re-imagine when its original intent doesn’t suit their fancy) had nothing to do with the protean sexual impulses of constitutionally sinful humans. The equality they valued was political equality based on universal, non-behavioral human traits.

Equality demands that we treat like things alike. Homoerotic activity and relationships are neither ontologically nor morally the same as heterosexual activity and relationships. And unions between two people of the same sex are not the same as sexually complementary unions. The belief that they are ontologically the same is objectively false, and the belief that they’re morally the same is an erroneous assumption—not a fact.

No unmarried adult is denied the right to marry. Homosexuals are not demanding the right to marry. They are demanding the unilateral “right” to redefine marriage by jettisoning the most enduring, cross-cultural marital feature. And it is a re-definitional “right,” by the way, that polyamorists, close blood relatives, and “minor-attracted” persons do not enjoy. Being prohibited from unilaterally redefining marriage to suit their desires does not mean homosexuals are prohibited from marrying.

Rosenbloom continues, describing Dungy’s view that marriage is an institution composed of one man and one woman as “sad” and  “unevolved.” Rosenbloom argues that the belief that sexual differentiation is inherent to marriage “downgrades” those who want their homoerotic unions to be recognized legally as marriages. Does Rosenbloom think that the view that marriage is a union of only two people “downgrades” polyamorists?  Does America’s valuation of equality demand that our conceptualization of marriage further evolve to allow the legalization of plural marriages?

And finally, what Leftist anti-marriage, anti-Christ screed would be complete without the inclusion of the old homosexuality=race saw. Rosenbloom asks,  “What if late, great Steelers coach Chuck Noll had not wanted what he thought might be the distraction of hiring a black assistant coach many decades ago?” To reiterate, Dungy did not view Sam’s aberrant sexual feelings as the distraction. Moreover, race (or skin color) per se is not analogous to sexual attraction. Now, racism and homoeroticism do share something in common. Human sin and lousy biblical exegesis resulted in both the cultural embrace of racism and the current cultural embrace of homoerotic identity politics.

The two titles given to Rosenbloom’s editorial aptly convey both Rosenbloom’s ignorance and the ignorance of the “progressive” sexuality dogma that infects so many in the arts, academia, and the mainstream press in America:

Print version title: “Dungy’s hypocrisy biggest distraction”

Online version: “Tony Dungy’s sad, embarrassing world”

Remember these titles next time someone accuses conservatives of being judgmental. Remember too that Christians are commanded to “Judge with righteous judgment.” Righteous judgment—or properly ordered discrimination between right and wrong—is judgment that aligns with biblical truth. All truth is God’s truth, and truth, like God’s nature, does not evolve—not even to accommodate human desire.

It would behoove “progressives” to read a little less from mainstream journalists and a little more from the great American writer Flannery O’Connor who wrote this in a letter to Betty Hester:

But I can never agree with you that…truth, has to satisfy emotionally to be right….It does not satisfy emotionally for the person brought up under many forms of false intellectual discipline….[T]he very notion of God’s existence is not emotionally satisfactory anymore for great numbers of people, which does not mean that God ceases to exist…. The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally. A higher paradox confounds emotion as well as reason and there are long periods in the lives of all of us, and of the saints, when the truth as revealed by faith is hideous, emotionally disturbing, downright repulsive. Witness the dark night of the soul in individual saints. Right now the whole world seems to be going through a dark night of the soul.

Tony Dungy’s views on marriage are views shared by countless Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant,  and Jewish scholars working in prestigious colleges, universities, and seminaries today (not to mention throughout history).  These women and men believe that homoerotic activity is immoral, that it effaces the image of God written on human beings, and that it undermines human flourishing. To affirm such activity would constitute a profoundly unloving act. No loving person affirms that which puts at risk the temporal and eternal lives of others.

These scholars are men and women recognized for their academic accomplishments and their civil treatment of others, including those with whom they disagree on homoerotic activity and marriage. How is it possible that “progressives” look at the lives of men and women like Ryan Anderson, Hadley Arkes, Michael Brown, J. Budziszewki, Anthony Esolen, John Finnis, Robert Gagnon, Robert George, Sherif Girgis , Vigen Guroian, David Bentley Hart, Peter Leithart, Russell Moore, Francesca Aran Murphy, David Novak, Michael Novak, John Piper, Alexander Pruss, R. Reno, Elizabeth Scalia, Andrew Wilson, Doug Wilson, and N.T. Wright—scholars all—and claim that they are ignorant, hateful bigots? It defies reason and evidence to suggest that all these scholars and the scores of others who share their views are motivated by ignorance, stupidity, or blind hatred.

But it’s clear that the Left is not motivated by a desire for truth, nor constrained by lack of evidence. Toss in a few cliché shibboleths like “equality” and “homophobia,” and they win the demagogic battle for the hearts of unthinking Americans who love nothing so much as being part of the cool group.

Stand with Illinois Family Institute! 

For the homosexuality-affirming movement to hold culture tightly in its foul grip, those for whom same-sex attraction and activity define “identity” must capture the hearts and minds of children who are our future. Hence the unholy clutching and scrabbling to rule public schools, even at the expense of intellectual freedom, diversity, and exploration.

They must also capture the hearts and minds of men—who are by nature leaders of culture. Hence the unholy scrabbling and clutching to transmogrify bastions of masculinity: the Boy Scouts of America, the military, and sports.

Those who find the video of homosexual NFL draftee Michael Sam “endearing” have had their consciences seared and values deformed. While it is a good thing that the rigid taboo against men expressing emotion has weakened, the image of a man tearfully stroking the arm of a weeping male lover and a celebratory homoerotic kiss between two men should provoke strong reactions—none of which should be “aw, isn’t that sweet.”

While pundits and the worldly wise celebrated the homoerotic predilections of Sam, Miami Dolphins defensive back Don Jones tweeted “OMG” and “horrible.” For those quickly deleted politically incorrect words, Jones is being fined and sent to re-education camp. “Horrible” means “dreadful; very unpleasant; and disagreeable.” Sentiments properly ordered should find homoerotic kissing “horrible.” God destroyed a city in large part because of homosexual activity, and God calls homosexual activity “abominable” and “detestable.” We should not find such acts “endearing.”

And a society that values diversity, tolerance (which means to endure that which offends you), religious liberty, and freedom of speech should not punish and “re-educate” those who dissent from “progressive” dogma or tweet one politically incorrect adjective

Click here to read this important article by English professor Robert Oscar Lopez who was raised by two lesbians. In it he provides a truthful overview of the history of and damage done by the homosexuality-affirming movement. This movement’s  disproportionate influence within our culture-making institutions accounts for the perverse cultural response to the Michael Sam video.  

Lopez predicts that a phenomenon as profoundly anti-nature and anti-culture as this one cannot last forever. One day the scales will fall from the eyes of America, and they will see what their ignorance and cowardice have birthed. The suffering of children who are being sacrificed on the altar of adult sexual desires will finally become known. There will be more tragic stories like that of 66-year-old French attorney who specializes in humanitarian law, Jean-Dominique Bunel, who shares what he thinks about being raised by two lesbians:

It is not therefore the taboo against homosexuality that made  me suffer, but rather, gay parenting….[E]quality cannot be applied rashly to the ‘right to a child’ which exists nowhere and can be drawn from no text at all.
…

I suffered from the indifference of adults to the intimate sufferings of children, starting with mine. In a world where their rights are each day rolled back, in truth, it is always the rights of adults that hold sway. I also suffered from the lack of a father, a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I was aware of it at a very early age. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation.

Divorce does not deprive a child necessarily of its parents, who normally are given shared or alternate guardianship of the child. Especially, divorce does not replace the father with a second woman, exacerbating even more the affective imbalance, both emotional and structural, for the child. All psychiatrists ought to recognize that the latter does not depend on a woman the way it depends upon a man, and that the ideal for the child is that the two accompany each other in an equal, complementary way.

…My father, who had abandoned my mother when I was three, precisely due to the [lesbian] relation she was engaged in, was never around, notably when I needed him. Also I turned as much as possible to the men of my surroundings, who begged for an oversized and sometimes unhealthy place in my life.

…All my life as an adult was thrust out of whack by this experience…. I doubt that many children of gay couples will open themselves up easily and honestly to journalists on this very delicate matter. It’s traumatizing to speak of suffering that one would rather silence.”

…As soon as I learned that the government was going to officialize marriage between two people of the same sex, I was thrown into disarray…. by the fact that we would be opening, necessarily, this code to adoption, institutionalizing a situation that had scarred me considerably. In that there is an injustice that I can in no way allow.

…I oppose this bill [to legalize same-sex “marriage” in France] because in the name of a fight against inequalities and discrimination, we would refuse a child one of its most sacred rights, upon which a universal, millenia-old tradition rests, that of being raised by a father and a mother. You see, two rights collide: the right to a child for gays, and the right of a child to a mother and father. The international convention on the rights of the child stipulates in effect that “the highest interest of the child should be a primary consideration” (article 3, section 1). Here this ‘higher interest’ leaves no doubt.” But it is the wounded man who concludes: “If two women who raised me had been married prior to the adoption of such a bill, I would have jumped into the fray and would have brought a complaint before the French state and before the European Court of the rights of man, for the violation of my right to a mom and a dad.”

Those whose inherent right to a mother and father is being stripped from them will someday tell their stories. It is hoped that when that day comes, there will remain some with a conscience to feel sorrow and shame.

 Stand with Illinois Family Institute!

The NFL is celebrating the sexual equivalent of a brain concussion by going gaga over Michael Sam’s sexual proclivities.

As I predicted on my radio show, the NFL pressured somebody into drafting the out-of-the-closet Sam, whose combine performance revealed that he is not big enough and strong enough to play defensive line in the NFL and not fast enough and quick enough to play linebacker. In other words, if he were not an open practitioner of the infamous crime against nature, he wouldn’t have gotten drafted at all.

His coming out, as they say, was a good career move. He apparently was shrewd enough to know his own limitations, and shrewd enough to know that the NFL wouldn’t dare not to draft him if he made a huge deal out of his sexual preference. And he was right.

Sam didn’t go until the 7th-from-the-last pick, at #249. I predicted that he wouldn’t be drafted until late, because of his obvious limitations, but that he would be drafted because the NFL was determined to keep the Gay Gestapo off their backs. They knew the entire league would be tagged as a bunch of homophobic bigots if Sam wasn’t picked, and the NFL long ago lost whatever testosterone they once had that might have enabled them to stand up to the bullying of homosexual activists.

But I knew he wouldn’t be drafted dead last, because that guy is always nicknamed “Mr. Irrelevant.” So #249 it was. Sam became the first 7^th-round draft pick ever to get a call from the president of the United States, and the president wasn’t calling him to congratulate him for his football prowess.

The contrast between the media’s treatment of Michael Sam and Tim Tebow couldn’t possibly by more striking. Tebow, a devout practitioner of Christianity, was pilloried and ridiculed. Sam, a devout practitioner of the act of sodomy, is lionized and celebrated. It truly is a world turned upside down.

Dolphins safety Don Jones has already – already! – been fined by the NFL and sent to reeducation camp for sending out critical Tweets of Sam’s sloppy wet kiss for his gay lover, the photo of which was plastered all over the top of Drudge on Sunday. Jones won’t be allowed to return to the team until his lobotomy is complete.

For a league increasingly priding itself on concern for player safety and health, it is bizarre that they are enthusiastically praising a draftee for a lifestyle that could send him to an early grave.

The NFL has already spent $765 million in compensation to former players who suffered concussions during their careers, and are limiting helmet-to-helmet contact in such a way that the league will soon be reduced to flag football, all in the interest in player health.

This makes their fluttering hysterics over Sam inexplicable in a sane, rational world. According to the Centers for Disease Control – not, you will note, a part of the vast rightwing conspiracy – young black males comprise the single highest risk category for HIV/AIDS.

While the CDC reports that 78 percent of all new HIV infections are among males, primarily those who have sex with other men, HIV/AIDS is taking a monstrous toll on young males in particular. According to the CDC, more than a quarter of all new HIV infections in the U.S. are found in young males between the ages of 13-24, particularly in young males between 20-24, the category into which Sam falls. In fact, young men are the only age group in which the rate of HIV/AIDS infections is showing a significant increase.

Despite the fact that blacks comprise just 12 percent of the population, blacks who are Sam’s age represent an astonishing 57 percent of all new cases among young males. There are more new HIV infections among young black males (aged 13-24) than any other age or racial group, period. Alarmingly, the estimated rate of new HIV infection for black males is eight times as high as that of white men.

In other words, as a young, black, homosexual male, Michael Sam is in the single highest risk category for HIV/AIDS that exists on the planet. The NFL should be warning him, not glorifying him.

According to a study published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Epidemiology, again not a part of the vast rightwing conspiracy, active participation in the homosexual lifestyle will cut anywhere from eight to 20 years off a male’s expected life span. The NFL is extolling behavior that may well turn out to be a death sentence for this young man.

If the NFL possessed one ounce of genuine compassion instead of the ersatz kind that exalts what should be condemned, they would be meeting privately with Michael Sam to urge him, in the strongest possible terms, to pursue reparative therapy in the hopes of saving his life.

Alas, the only people who truly care for Mr. Sam are those who love him enough to tell him the truth about the health risks of homosexual behavior – and that sadly does not include the leadership of the NFL. They long ago sold their souls to the virulent, vitriolic bullies and bigots of Big Gay. But it will be Michael Sam who pays the price for their soulless cowardice.

This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.