The contexts and materials “progressives” use to warp the hearts and minds of children on sexuality are far too numerous to list. The pro-homo/pro-sex-impersonation propaganda campaigns in government schools, publicly funded libraries, and children’s programming are both bold and ubiquitous. The sexually disordered among us no longer feel the need to hide their intentions to lure children into their deceptive world. Today they can get jobs in elementary schools, public library children’s departments, and the colorful cartoon universes that thrive on Amazon, Netflix, Disney, and Cartoon Network from which they light up the viral world and darken children’s worlds.

By now virtually everyone has heard about the recent viral sensation, an episode of the cartoon show Muppet Babies in which the children’s classic Cinderella is retold as a “trans”-cultist fantasy for preschoolers. Baby Gonzo is depicted as a cross-dresser wannabe who longs to go the ball dressed as a princess. After a heartstrings-pulling scene in which a pitiable baby Gonzo sadly shares that he won’t wear the princess gown of his dreams because he doesn’t want to “upset anyone,” his “fairy ratfather” grants his wish to attend the ball in a princess gown. At the ball where he identifies as his drag persona Gonzorella, Gonzo is unrecognizable to his friends. After the ball when his friends discover he was Gonzorella and ask why he didn’t tell them, he says—pitiably again—that he didn’t want to upset them. Duly chastised, baby Piggy, apologizes and repents of her prior belief that princess gowns are for girls.

Ignorant wokesters with metaphysical delusions and bent sexual drives have tossed away those unnecessary trench coats of invisibility. They know that preschool is the ideal age to manipulate the emotions of children on complex issues—the nature and implications of which preschoolers can’t possibly understand—and wokesters know they can do their manipulating openly.

Tragically, Muppet Babies was not the first or only animator’s foray into children’s propaganda. Another such effort is Steven’s Universe on the Cartoon Network created by the well-known non-binary, bisexual Rebecca Sugar. The Peabody award-winning series works tenaciously to blur the distinctions between male and female and to normalize homosexuality.

NPR reported that “Rebecca Sugar is one of the many animators who’ve been pushing—successfully—for more overt queer representation in cartoons.”

The increase in the amount of “queer” representation is staggering:

A new database from Insider confirms more than 250 LGBTQ+ characters in children’s cartoons dating back to 1983. And if you look at the data from 2010 through 2020—especially in the latter five years—the representation of overtly queer characters skyrockets. …

They say what makes shows during this decade so special is that it’s not just a handful of tokenized, possibly gay characters living in a straight world. The baseline narratives of these shows have LGBTQ lives at the center of them.

Abbey White, reporter for the Inside database, waxes enthusiastic about “queer” propaganda for children:

“I think about Danger & Eggs, I think about She-Ra, Steven Universe [and] just how overtly queer these cartoons are. … That’s really exciting to see people queering their entire narratives in ways that I think reach not just children but a broader audience.”

Sexually perverse, age-inappropriate content on Disney and Netflix makes a huge cultural splash, while even more subversive content hides in plain sight in libraries creates barely a ripple.

Libraries in public elementary, middle, and high schools are brimming with books that affirm leftist views of homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation, including some that would have been deemed obscene and pornographic before those terms were rendered obsolete by moral anarchists. An Internet search for Young Adult (YA) “LGBT” fiction—which is intended for children ages 12-18—yields countless lists of recommended books.

One influential proponent of YA “LGBT” fiction is 48-year-old homosexual author of several YA novels that affirm homosexuality, David Levithan, who serves as the senior editor of Scholastic, the well-known children’s book publisher.

A 2015 article about Levithan, who claims he’s been “out” since nursery school and has a homosexual uncle, confirms the role of YA fiction in transforming culture:

The rising popularity of YA novels has also increased their power as educational tools.

Ironically, in this article, Levithan writes this about librarians and teachers:

You’re not a librarian to keep books out of the hands of children. … [T]here are clearly many [teachers] who bring their own bias to work when they are not supposed to.

Is Levithan asserting that there are no “progressive” teachers who bring their bias against theologically orthodox Christian views to work? Is he claiming that librarians would happily include books about teens who resist their homoerotic feelings or about adults who have chosen to leave homosexual lives—assuming any such books could get through the bigoted, intolerant censors in publishing companies and book review organizations?

While “progressives” argue that all identities should be represented in library collections, they really mean all identities they deem morally justifiable. Stories about teens or adults who subordinate erotic predilections to religious convictions in publicly funded libraries? No way. Stories about homoeroticism, cross-sex impersonation, kink, and polyamory? Absolutely.

CAUTION: Pornographic cartoons of two women from Kobabe’s memoir.

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

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

Judging from the flood of propaganda polluting culture, it appears oppressive “progressives” take far more seriously Aristotle’s oft-quoted statement, “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man” than do conservatives.  And this flood of propaganda aimed like Cupid’s arrow at the hearts of children—and, therefore, the heart of civilization—will not soon be stemmed.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Warping-Childrens-Hearts-and-Minds.mp3

Written by Peter Heck

Netflix, after facing intense public backlash for airing the provocative film “Cuties,” which many saw as sexualizing children, is now facing criminal charges in the state of Texas.

State Representative Matt Schaefer (R-TX) made public a grand jury indictment that has been filed in Tyler County, alleging Netflix is guilty of promoting “lewd visual material depicting a child.”

Netflix, Inc. indicted by grand jury in Tyler Co., Tx for promoting material in Cuties film which depicts lewd exhibition of pubic area of a clothed or partially clothed child who was younger than 18 yrs of age which appeals to the prurient interest in sex #Cuties #txlege pic.twitter.com/UJ1hY8XJ2l

— Matt Schaefer (@RepMattSchaefer) October 6, 2020

According to the indictment, Netflix “knowingly” promoted “visual material which depicts…the genitals or pubic area of a clothed or partially clothed child who was younger than 18 years of age at the time the visual material was created.”

Concurrent with Texas action, multiple lawmakers of both parties in Washington, D.C., called on the Justice Department to criminally investigate Netflix for the same offense of dabbling in the promotion of child pornography.

Additionally, there has been fear among those who work to rescue sex trafficked children that “Cuties” depicts the grooming behavior consistent with child predation.

“We’ve had 245 recoveries,” Joseph Travers, the founder of the child rescue organization Saved in America, told Breitbart News Daily, “meaning we have 245 case studies and one of the things we found out [is that there are] five steps of a predator’s grooming of children for child sex trafficking. … Out of the five steps, four of the steps are right in that Netflix film on how to groom a child for trafficking.”

Netflix has continued to defend itself throughout the ordeal, claiming the film was meant to show “the pressure young girls face on social media and from society more generally growing up.”

This article was originally published at Disrn.com.

Now that the new Netflix movie “Cuties” is available for viewing, we know that it is far worse than we imagined. Yet there are movie critics and movie stars who are celebrating this trash rather than denouncing it. What has happened to our culture? Have we lost all vestige of a conscience?

In the words of Kyle Hooten on Twitter, “‘Cuties’ just released and it’s WAY worse than anybody expected. Netflix just published soft-core child pornography, and they’ll probably get away with it.”

Jason Howerton’s tweet was even more emphatic: “I’m dead serious, people should go to prison for this. ‘Lawfully defines as pedophilia’ and look at the media ratings. All of you are going to hell. #Cuties.”

As my wife Nancy asked when I sent her some links, “How can this even be legal????” How indeed.

Before the movie came out, but based on initial reports, I asked, “At what point does this stop? At what point does our society say, ‘Enough is enough’ when it comes to the assault on our children? At what point do we stand up as a nation and put a stop to this attack on innocence?”

Now that the movie is out, with a sickening segment posted for viewing on social media (viewer discretion advised), we must say, “Enough!” as loudly and clearly as we can.

A good place to start would be canceling Netflix subscriptions. As Robby Starbuck tweeted, “The 11 year old girls who were sexually exploited filming Cuties shot those scenes in front of a director, a DP, a gaffer, their parents, a choreographer, a MUA, a hair person, a camera assistant, a wardrobe person, extras and more. Not one adult protected them. #CancelNetflix.”

Yes, these are young girls dancing sexually in the presence of adults (no doubt to be viewed online with glee by sexual perverts). Young girls who could be your daughters or granddaughters. Young girls being exploited for profit. And Netflix distributes this without consequences? Enough!

Yet, despite this outrage, one which is uniting social liberals with social conservatives, the movie has its admirers.

In the words of actress Tessa Thompson, “#CUTIES is a beautiful film. It gutted me at @sundancefest.  It introduces a fresh voice at the helm. She’s a French Senegalese Black woman mining her experiences. The film comments on the hyper-sexualization of preadolescent girls. Disappointed to see the current discourse. ”

So Thompson is disappointed to see mothers and fathers and others grieved over “the hyper-sexualization of preadolescent girls,” failing to realize that they are being exploited in this very movie.

In other words, the movie does not simply tell a sad story about young girls being sexually exploited (many would argue it celebrates their sexploitation). The movie itself exploits the children. But rather than being brokenhearted over the contents of the movie, Thompson is “disappointed” to see the negative reaction to the flick. This is turning morality upside down.

Yet Thompson is not alone, and what I am about to report provides a glimpse into the morally confused bubble in which many in the film industry live.

On the Rotten Tomatoes website, viewers gave the movie a rating of 3% an incredibly low (but rightly deserved) score. (As of this writing, there were 1,047 viewer ratings.) But film critics gave it a score of 88%, a very good rating.  (This was based on 32 reviews.) They really loved the film!

This sums up the perversion of much of the film industry – the lack of morality, the lack of conscience, the lack of family awareness.

And what is the critics’ description of the film? “A thoughtful look at the intricacies of girlhood in the modern age, Cuties is a coming-of-age film that confronts its themes with poignancy and nuance.”

Only one word comes to mind to describe my reaction to their words: sick.

No wonder America is so morally lost. These critics are our guides and our prophets.

Yet, the truth be told, I’m not in the least bit surprised. Not when a sexually degrading, vulgar song can be the number one hit in the nation (and in other nations). Not when there is an epidemic of porn sweeping the land, affecting the religious and non-religious alike. Not when our legislators pass laws protecting sexually aggressive adults (who have sex with younger teens). Not when we celebrate 11-year-old drag queens dancing in gay bars.

So, it is not just the film critics who are sick. It is not just those who exploited those young girls in “Cuties” (this includes their parents, who allowed it) who are sick. No, our whole nation is sick, drowning in a sea of depravity.

It is that serious. There is no hyperbole in my words.

And so, while canceling our Netflix subscriptions is a good place to start – in recent weeks, the series “Lucifer” was trending at the top of the charts – it can only be a starting point.

This is a time for deep personal reflection. A time for searching of soul and heart. A time of sweeping repentance.

In short, either we have a massive spiritual and moral awakening, or we perish. What will it be?

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

At what point does this stop? At what point does our society say, “Enough is enough” when it comes to the assault on our children? At what point do we stand up as a nation and put a stop to this attack on innocence?

There was a time when our kids were not bombarded with “pornographic” sex-ed curricula in middle school.

There was a time when condoms were not given out to elementary school students.

There was a time when first graders were not taught LGBTQ terminology.

There was a time when we did not celebrate 8-year-old drag queens (and when drag queens did not twerk for our toddlers in libraries).

There was a time when movies were not made about 11-year-old girls joining sensual dance teams.

But that time is not now, and the assault on our children’s innocence is at an all time high. Should we not be concerned? Should we not be grieved? Should we not be outraged?

Lest you think I’m exaggerating, the California Globe reported on May 9, 2019,

Despite hundreds of parents protesting and testifying, on Wednesday the California State Board of Education approved highly controversial changes to the state’s health and sex education framework including teaching children about bondage, anal sex, pederasty, sex trafficking, sexual orientation and transgender and non-conforming students.

One book, recommended for transitional kindergarten through third grade includes “graphic, close-up illustrations of child/adult genitals and the sex act itself.” This is for kids aged 6-9!

Another book, also recommended for the same age group, teaches “kids they can be a boy, a girl, both, neither, gender queer, or gender fluid, etc. and that adults guess a child’s gender based on body parts.”

As for high school students, one textbook, “Introduces or encourages anal sex for all sexual orientations, BDSM (bondage, domination, sadomasochism), body fluid (urinating on each other) or blood play, fisting, and a long list of other sexual debauchery.”

If you blush while reading these words as an adult (or don’t know what some of the terms mean), can you imagine teaching this to high school kids? Yet it is adults, many of them parents, who approve of trash like this. What an outrage.

Now, Netflix has come under attack for its new documentary called Cuties. Yes, “The streaming giant is facing backlash for its promotional poster for the French film, whose young stars are 11-years-old. The promo image in question shows the children wearing revealing dance attire of shorts and crop tops and striking various dance poses, like kneeling on the floor and squatting.”

Netflix quickly apologized for the poster, removing it from the promotional material. But it did not apologize for the movie itself, stating,

We’re deeply sorry for the inappropriate artwork that we used for Mignonnes/Cuties. It was not OK, nor was it representative of this French film which won an award at Sundance. We’ve now updated the pictures and description.

Ah, but of course. The film won an award at Sundance. It must be good and moral. After all, Sundance is kind of like the Bible Belt of movies. Conservative. Almost prudish. Right.

Rather, as Indie Wire noted, “The Sundance Film Festival has been shocking audiences — and launching careers — for years.” An early Sundance winner was the 1989 movie “Sex, Lies, and Videotape.”

As described on IndieWire, “In someways the quintessential movie of Sundance’s early years, Steven Soderbergh’s landmark debut remains one of the best movies ever to come out of the festival — and one of the most sexually frank.”

So much for winning an award at Netflix.

And what, exactly, is “Cuties” about? As reported on Heavy, in the movie, which earned a TV-MA rating, “Amy, an 11-year-old girl, joins a group of dancers named ‘the cuties’ at school, and rapidly grows aware of her burgeoning femininity – upsetting her mother and her values in the process.”

It is also described as a “coming-of-age moving about an 11-year-old,” which really says it all. Girls that young are not “coming of age” to sensual dancing unless someone else teaches them. The thoughts would never enter their minds on their own, especially when they come from traditional religious backgrounds, as does Amy.

A headline in The U.S. Sun reads, “THIS IS GROSS! Netflix’s new ‘Cuties’ show sparks fury with ‘highly sexualised’ drama about 11-year-old girl joining ‘twerking squad.’” This should spark fury among parents. (And what about the little girls who posed for the Netflix poster? Should anyone think about them?)

Someone might say, “But the film simply tells the increasingly common story of a girl raised in a religious home (in this case, a Muslim home) who discovers a whole new world through social media and her school. This is the new reality.”

But that’s the whole problem. The new reality is rotten. The new reality defiles. The new reality destroys. And the new reality gets worse by the day. Almost all innocence has been lost.

Young kids grow up singing the most salacious lyrics, gyrating sexually as they mouth the words, being exposed to filth long before they can even understand it. And kids as young as 8 are regularly encountering porn. How have we let this happen? How have we let our children be emotionally and morally raped?

There is even concern now about pedophile dolls. I am not making this up.

As a nation, we are outraged over the allegations against the late Jeffrey Epstein. And we are mortified when we learn that sex trafficking is taking place in front of our eyes in major cities across America.

But our outrage should go deeper. The very souls of our children are under daily assault, from their cell phones to their classrooms. Shall we not put up a wall of protection around them?

Dr. Brown is the founder and president of Fire School of Ministry in Concord, North Carolina. He is also a radio and podcast host of The Line of Fire and a prolific author. Jezebel’s War With America: The Plot to Destroy Our Country and What We Can Do to Turn the Tide is his latest book. This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Written by Arielle Leake

The Baby-Sitters Club is a new Netflix series based on the popular children’s books by the same name published in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. The books—and now the television series—follow the lives of four 12-year-old girls and their entrepreneurial babysitting endeavors. Unfortunately, parents who fondly remember the books from their own childhood should think twice before allowing their impressionable children to watch this G-rated show.

Transgenderism is brazenly presented, unchallenged, and actively celebrated. The fourth episode of the show “Mary Ann Saves the Day” prominently displays the show’s cultural indoctrination. One of the four main characters, Mary Ann, is tasked with babysitting Bailey, a young boy who firmly believes he is a girl and lives a transgender lifestyle. The episode is fraught with highly concerning dialogue and messaging. For example, Mary Ann’s friend explains Bailey’s lifestyle to her by saying, “We all want our insides to match our outsides.” This explanation clearly illustrates the two-story dualism underlying the transgender movement or, as Nancy Pearcy puts it in her book Love Thy Body, “the idea that your brain can be at war with your body.”

The scriptwriters are so committed to the idea that your feelings control who you really are that they cannot even promote healthy encouragement. When Mary Ann, who struggles with self-confidence (as most tween girls do), exclaims that she is “a pathetic cry-baby,” the only help her friend can offer is to say, “If you believe you are a pathetic cry-baby who am I to tell you otherwise.” It could have been a moment used to show young girls how to support and encourage one another while not affirming a lie someone believes about themselves. Instead, all the show can muster is a weak statement meant to shove forward the philosophy that how you feel dictates who you are.

Mary Ann finally finds her “confidence” when she takes it upon herself to reprimand the doctor and nurse who dare to address Bailey by his biological sex. Mary Ann instructs them that “from here on out,” they should “recognize her for who she is.” Further, she requests that they bring Bailey something other than the standard blue hospital nightgown, which he evidently finds highly offensive.

Even more appalling, those in the position of authority—both the medical professionals and the child’s parents—willingly go along with the young child’s whims. Instead of helping him see who God created him to be, they encourage his harmful fascinations and reinforce the idea that fitting a certain “stereotype,” whether it be wearing blue or playing tea parties, is what makes you a male or female.

As a young woman, I am disappointed to see a show that will be viewed by many young and impressionable girls espousing such harmful views—without so much as a question about the consequences of these ideas. Instead of giving young girls a proper view of what it means to be a woman, The Baby-Sitters Club presents womanhood as something that is merely a product of your feelings and not a God-given identity.

In a world that is becoming increasingly accepting of transgender ideology, parents should be cautious about the ideas being espoused in the media their children consume. Christians have a role to play in restoring an understanding that humans are a unique combination of both body and soul, which equally make up who we are and are not at war with each other. Nancy Pearcy defines the Christian’s role as being “the first in line to nurture and support kids who don’t ‘fit in’ by affirming the diversity of gifts and temperaments in the body of Christ.” This is exactly the opposite of what is done in The Baby-Sitters Club.

Arielle Leake is a Policy & Government Affairs intern focusing on religious liberty. This article was originally published at the FRC blog.

If you have logged on to Netflix, Amazon, and other places recently, you have probably seen some of corporate America’s virtue signaling via banners in support of Black Lives Matter. By itself, it is a powerful slogan which no one can disagree with, even if you’d prefer to say all lives matter. However, there’s more to this than just a slogan.

The organization Black Lives Matter has some very specific goals and views that many casual observers may not know: it was founded to dramatically change America, and its leaders have not been shy about where they stand. Here are just a few of their policy positions with a couple of my comments in parentheses.

• Black Lives Matter supports abortion. It states: “We deserve and thus we demand reproductive justice that gives us autonomy over our bodies and our identities while ensuring that our children and families are supported, safe, and able to thrive.” (Aborted babies don’t thrive nor are they safe. Black babies are disproportionately terminated by the abortion industry which has racist roots stemming from Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.)

• Black Lives Matter supports the radical LGBT agenda. It states: “We foster a queer-affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking.” (Two of the three founders of BLM describe themselves as “queer,” a rather radical term for a homosexual activist.)

• Black Lives Matter opposes the traditional nuclear family which is a vital sociological part of overcoming crime and poverty. It states: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.” (Villages without fathers are poor [literally] substitutes for communities with intact families.)

• Black Lives Matter supports reparations. It states: “Reparations for full and free access for all Black people (including undocumented and currently and formerly incarcerated people) to lifetime education…retroactive forgiveness of student loans, and support for lifetime learning programs.”

• Black Lives Matter supports the abolishment of police. It states: “We believe that prisons, police and all other institutions that inflict violence on Black people must be abolished…”

• Black Lives Matter claims to oppose racism, but it is an organization with anti-Semitic leanings. In 2016 BLM adopted derogatory policy statements about Israel. It described the nation of Israel as an “apartheid state” committing “genocide” and supports the boycott, divest and sanction (BDS) movement against Israel. BLM opposes any support of Israel by the United States government.

• Black Lives Matter’s activism is helping the presidential campaign of Joe Biden. If one goes to the BLM website and chooses to donate, he is redirected to a site hosted by ActBlue and prompted with the message: “We appreciate your support of the movement and our ongoing fight to end state-sanctioned violence, liberate Black people, and end white supremacy forever.” Joe Biden is the top beneficiary of ActBlue’s fundraising efforts.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

Written by Traci Devette Griggs

When Netflix first released the series 13 Reasons Why in May of 2017, school systems and public health officials all over the country warned that it could cause an increase in teenage suicide. (See previous story here.) Apparently, that is exactly what happened.

According to a study in the April 2019 Journal of American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry: “After accounting for seasonal effects and an underlying increasing trend in monthly suicide rates, the overall suicide rate among 10-17 year-olds increased significantly in the month immediately following the release.” (Netflix posts all episodes of an entire season all at once.)

Tim Winter, President of the Parents Television Council, is outraged over Netflix executives’ response to previous concerns that the first season, in particular, glamorizes teen suicide and gives kids the tragically false impression that they can exact revenge against tormentors by taking their own life. Netflix has since produced two more seasons of the show, the third to be released soon.

“This [recent research] follows another concerning statistic after the show was released,” according to Winter. “The Google search term for “How do I kill myself” went up 26 percent. So you now have evidence that there is a link between this show, targeting teenagers, targeting children, that basically romanticizes teen suicide, and a number of teenagers and children who are actually killing themselves. It’s deeply troubling.”

What’s more disturbing is that the evidence of the spike in online searches for committing suicide was from a research paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association back in October 2017, just months after the first season aired.

“Netflix seems to be one of the biggest perpetrators in terms of explicit content marketing towards children,” continues Winter. “They have a constitutional First Amendment right to produce this type of content. But I think it is outrageous that a publicly traded corporation would market and profit, they would profit from children who watch a show, and it’s now being linked to increased rates of suicide of children.”

The rate of increase in suicide was attributed almost exclusively to boys, ages 10-17 years old, a finding that surprised researchers since the main character, who is graphically portrayed committing suicide on the show, is female. This statistic tracks suicides that result in death, not suicide attempts.

This article was originally published at the NC Family Policy Council blog.