In October of last year, in a “girls” high school volleyball game in North Carolina, a student was injured painfully. The ball was spiked by a member of the opposing team—only it wasn’t by a biological female but a biological male—a transgender player. That had to leave a mark. Watch the video for yourself.

Today that girl, Payton McNabb, is speaking out to support a bill that would disallow biological males from competing in girls’ sports.

In our Brave New World, people can claim to identify as a member of the opposite sex, and so it is. But that neither comports with the Bible nor science.

In his new book, The War on Virtue, Dr. William Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, writes, “Among many members of the ruling class, gender ideology is all the rage. But the fact is that we cannot change our sex. We are either male or female. We cannot change our chromosomes.”

Congress acted last week to bar biological males from competing with biological females in schools and colleges that receive federal funds. It passed in the House, 219-203.

The sponsor of the bill, Greg Steube (R-Florida) said, “The integrity of women’s sports must be protected.” Kevin McCarthy (R-California) called it a “great day for America, a great day for girls and women and for fairness in sports.”

Sadly, not one Democrat voted for it. No, not one. And President Biden threatens to veto it.

Furthermore, punishment awaits those who deviate from the new “sexual orthodoxy” that claims a man can be a woman if he so wills it. Such as a Christian school in New England.

Last month, the New York Post reported, “A Vermont high school has been banned from participating in state athletics after its girls’ hoops team forfeited a playoff game against a team with a trans player.” And so it goes in our Brave New World.

Terry Schilling, executive director of the American Principles Project, has become an outspoken critic of the transgender movement. In a radio segment on its impact on women’s sports, Terry told me: “The transgender movement believes that sex is not important. What is really important is your gender identity or who you identify as. Men and women are different. Our founding fathers would have said it is a ‘self-evident truth’ that men and women are different.”

Schilling adds, “We have studied this scientifically—the biological difference between males and females, and there are many of them. When they come to sports, they apply the most. Men have more bone density than women do. Men are taller on average. Men are typically faster. They have more muscle mass….This is what scientific research has shown time and time again. And it’s all related to our hormones and our biological makeup, and it’s why we needed to create Title IX.”

The federal government notes that Title IX is a part of the Education Amendments of 1972: “Title IX protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.”

Out of Title IX grew women’s sports leagues. So that women could compete against women.

But the transgender movement is disrupting all this. Many girls who have practiced for years in a particular sport are now losing to biological males who have a natural advantage over them. The girls then lose out on valuable scholarships.

What are biological males doing in women’s sports? It is grossly unfair. Sometimes it’s even dangerous—as in the volleyball example.

One of the great ideals of America is basic fairness. It’s abiding by the Golden Rule, articulated by Jesus, that we should treat others as we would want to be treated. If you were a biological female, would you want to have to compete with biological males claiming to be girls?

Some of our presidents noted the importance of the Golden Rule in a variety of contexts:

• Teddy Roosevelt told the Congress: “The Golden Rule should be, and as the world grows in morality it will be, the guiding rule of conduct among nations as among individuals.”

• President Harry Truman noted, “All the questions which now beset us in strikes and wages and working conditions would be so much simpler if men and women were willing to apply the principles of the Golden Rule. Do as you would be done by.”

• Before he became president, California Governor Ronald Reagan asserted, “With freedom goes responsibility. Sir Winston Churchill once said you can have 10,000 regulations and still not have respect for the law. We might start with the Ten Commandments. If we lived by the Golden Rule, there would be no need for other laws.”

The longer society goes down this path, the longer we abandon our moral sanity, the worse off we are.

[Hat tip to Bill Federer and his America’s God and Country for help with the quotes.]

It’s a queer, queer, queer, queer world, becoming systemically queerer every day that “progressives” control big government, big tech, big business, big education, big entertainment, and big medicine. As many have pointed out, the fact that we have a day to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. but a month to celebrate sexual perversion illustrates just how queer America has already become. The aspirational, inspirational goal of judging people by the content of their character has been discarded to make a safe space for the dispiriting goal of judging people by the degree to which their sexual appetites deviate from the normal, healthy, good, and right.

So, let’s take a quick spin around the anti-culture of America.

Today, the new children’s Disney-Pixar movie Lightyear is being released. It includes a lesbian kiss between Buzz Lightyear’s close friend Commander Alisha Hawthorne and her “wife.” The kiss had been deleted, but then a group of petulant “LGBTQIAP+” activists at Disney demanded it be restored. This is the same group that stomped their feet and held their breaths after Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law a bill to make pro-perversion indoctrination of elementary school children illegal. Even without the kiss, however, the inclusion of a lesbian couple—faux-married or unmarried—in a children’s movie is reprehensible. Positive portrayals of egregious sin in children’s entertainment are deeply sinful.

Actor Chris Evans, who voices Buzz Lightyear, calls parents who don’t want their children exposed to positive portrayals of sin “idiots” who should be ignored until they “die off like dinosaurs.” Filled with the hot-air and pomposity of Hollywood, Evans pontificated,

Every time there’s been social advancement as we wake up, the American story, the human story is one of constant social awakening and growth and that’s what makes us good.

First, widespread cultural acceptance of homoeroticism constitutes neither “advancement” nor “growth.”

Second, widespread cultural acceptance of homoeroticism does not make us “good.”

Third, widespread cultural acceptance of homoeroticism does not constitute a “social awakening.” Rather, it constitutes a descent into cultural darkness that has recurred throughout history, including in Sodom and Gomorrah, ancient Greece, the Tokugawa period in Japan, and now in purportedly civilized societies. The human story is one of sin, sorrow, and suffering born of rebellion against God.

Evans also asserted that “There’s [sic] always going to be people who are afraid and unaware and trying to hold on to what was before.”

Since homoeroticism has gone before, and before, and before, perhaps it’s Evans who is trying to hold on to what was before. Perhaps he’s afraid of what he doesn’t understand. Perhaps he’s afraid of the Hollywood muckety-mucks who dole out big bucks only to ideological toadies, and Evans knows deep down he lacks the courage to stand for truth and risk losing fame and fortune.

Next on our journey to Sex-finity and beyond, we come to Bros, the first homosexual romantic comedy produced by a major Hollywood studio. Homosexual actor Billy Eichner wrote and stars in Bros, which is produced by Universal studios and will be released in theaters on September 10. All cast members are either homosexual or cross-sex impersonators. You can watch the trailer for this rip-snorting comedy about homoeroticism, which includes a family with young children dancing and singing about “bottom” sex:

As all sentient beings know, it’s not just the entertainment industry that seeks to impose disordered socially constructed beliefs about sexuality on the world. Case in point: Postmates, a food delivery service akin to Doordash or UberEats. Postmates decided that what the world needs now from them is information on what to eat prior to having anal sex so that it will less “messy.” What better time to celebrate “bottom” sex than “pride” month, and what better way to celebrate sodomy than have an eggplant in kink gear talk to a “taco,” which is slang for a woman’s vulva. Here’s what “growth” and “advancement” looks like in Sex-finity and beyond:

Sex-finity—like toddler story hours—wouldn’t be nearly as advanced and inclusive if any form of sexual deviance were excluded, so of course cross-sex impersonators are ubiquitous. The New York Post recently exposed that since 2018, New York City has paid an organization called Drag Story Hour NYC $207,000 to provide drag queens to enculturate children with the drag ideology:

Last month alone, Drag Story Hour NYC—a nonprofit whose outrageously cross-dressed performers interact with kids as young as 3—earned $46,000 from city contracts for appearances at public schools, street festivals, and libraries. …

Since January, the group has organized 49 drag programs in 34 public elementary, middle, and high schools, it boasted on its website, with appearances in all five boroughs.

This is why all government bureaucracies need to trimmed to the bone, first with an axe, then with a scalpel. No one who played even a small role in approving such expenditures deserves to be anywhere near public funds—or children.

Colonizing the minds of other people’s children with evil ideas takes a lot of money, parental acquiescence, and institutional control. And that explains why several days ago, eleven de facto Democrats who self-identify as Republicans sent a letter to U.S. House and Senate leaders, urging them to pass legislation like the “Equality Act,” which has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with sexual predilections.

The Equality Act would strip Americans of religious liberty and speech rights, essentially forcing all Americans to treat homoeroticism and cross-sex impersonation as if those conditions are akin to biological sex or race.

This effort is being spearheaded by former Florida Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen mother of a 36-year-old daughter—born Amanda Michelle Ros-Lehtinen—who now masquerades as a man named Roderigo. Ros-Lehtinen—a supporter of all things “LGBTQ+”—is joined by ten other pseudo-Republicans: Barbara Comstock (R-VA), Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), Susan Brooks (R-IN), Charlie Dent (R-PA), Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Claudine Schneider (R-RI), Bob Dold (R-IL), Jim Greenwood (R-PA), Chris Shays (R-CN) and Steve Gunderson (R-WI).

This foolish group believes that the United States should “pass legislation that protects all Americans from discrimination no matter their gender identity or who they love.” Translated into plain, honest language, they are saying that Americans should be prohibited from disapproving of cross-dressing, homoerotic acts, or homoerotic relationships. According to the Equality Act and its supporters, religious liberty—our first liberty—should be subordinated to disordered, subjective sexual feelings.

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen calls this push to limit religious liberty “freedom for all,” saying “That’s a bedrock principle of the Republican Party.”

This effort also constitutes yet another power grab. These wolfish Dems in red clothing want the federal government to usurp more control from states:

The Hill reports that Ros-Lehtinen believes the “‘patchwork’ of state-by-state protections” is unfair to “LGBTQ+” Americans.

In other words, if leftists are not successful at the ballot box in every state, they will use federal power to impose their will on intransigent states. Ros-Lehtinen and her collaborators believe that no state should have the right to prohibit cross-dressing boys from using girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms. No state should be allowed to prohibit cross-dressing boys from participating in girls’ sports. And no state should be allowed to prohibit quack doctors from chemically stopping puberty or lopping off the healthy breasts of confused 14-year-old girls.

We must look at the tangled rotting trees in order to better see the tangled, rotting forest that America is becoming. No gaze-averting when so much is at stake.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Queer-Queer-Queer-Queer-World.mp3

Alex Marlow, News Editor-in-Chief at the rightwing website Breitbart.com, recently made the claim that “TikTok is Chinese mind control,” pointing to how it has captivated the “increasingly A.D.D. American mind” with its constant scrolling. Is there any truth to this claim? And is TikTok more dangerous than we realize, not just because of the mindless distraction it provides but because of its content?

Ironically, although TikTok was developed by a Chinese company and is owned by a Chinese company, it is banned in China, along with a number of other, major social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. How interesting! So, the app is good for kids in America and the world but not good for kids in China?

Still, to say that “TikTok is Chinese mind control,” as if the Chinese developers intentionally built an app that could help destroy the Western mind, could be quite a stretch.

Yet that doesn’t mean that there is not real danger with TikTok, and not simply because it exacerbates our problem with distraction. Rather, there is real danger because of some of its destructive content, appealing especially to children and young people.

To give a shocking case in point, according to a recent video by Matt Walsh, “TikTok Is Making Mental Illness Trendy.”

He noted how destructive ideas and behavior and concepts “can go from fringe to trendy to mainstream quite literally overnight.” He added, “What was unusual one moment might be ubiquitous the next, and people, especially young people, can get caught in the current and drowned before they even notice that their shoes are wet.”

He pointed to the latest TikTok fascination with what is called Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), as a result of which large numbers of young people are wrongly diagnosing themselves with this unusual condition.

Walsh played a clip from Good Morning America, where this phenomenon was discussed with real concern, as the host noted that videos with hashtags like #Dissassociativeidentitydisorder and #Borderlinepersonalitydisorder have been viewed hundreds of millions of times. This really has become epidemic.

Walsh then explained that the young person who self-diagnoses with MPD refers to himself or herself as “the system,” with each personality within “the system” being called an “alter.” And what effect does this have on young people?

It was a concerned mother who sent me the Walsh video, wanting to tell me about the latest developments with her 18-year-old daughter, who now identifies as a male. (We’ll call the daughter Rachel to hide her identity.) She wrote,

“Do you know anything about this??? I’m literally livid. This is how it started with us. Rachel went on some social media site, convinced herself she was a system with lots of personalities, like 100. And did this exact same thing!! When I spoke to the psychiatrists about this, they had no clue what I was talking about. No one has been helpful with this. Why is no one talking about this?!?! I’m so angry right now. Part of what the issue is with Rachel, she thinks she has several alters with all different genders. Why would any doctor give her testosterone acting like this???”

So, trained psychiatrists have not heard about this destructive TikTok trend, but millions of impressionable young people are intimately familiar with it. And, here in America, where the daughter now resides, a licensed doctor was willing to give this teenager a testosterone shot to help her “transition” to male, even though her mental instability should have been visible at once.

The mother continued, “She is so wrapped up and so deep in lies. I don’t know how to bring her to truth. . . . Her roommate, also a ‘system’ won’t allow me to talk to my child. She is the gate keeper to any communication. How can a trained therapist even accept this nonsense???”

Nonsense indeed. And some of you can identify with this mother’s pain and anger and frustration.

It’s really as if a foreign entity has invaded the hearts and minds of our kids, what Jordan Peterson recently referred to as a “sociological contagion.”

Peterson also opined that opening the boundaries of “sex categories” would “fatally confuse thousands of young girls,” a claim that the New York Post found to be “unsubstantiated.” Really? Unsubstantiated?

Perhaps this Newsweek headline from October 2021 provides some of the necessary substantiation for Peterson’s claim: “Nearly 40 Percent of U.S. Gen Zs, 30 Percent of Young Christians Identify as LGBTQ, Poll Shows.”

This spike of more than 4,000 percent, from roughly 3 percent of the population to the current 40 percent, did not happen in a vacuum. Instead, this is what takes place when a society loses its boundaries, casts off traditional biblical values, and inundates its young people with a constant flood of pro-LGBTQ messages and propaganda. The latest TikTok trends provide yet another avenue for such mass deception, as kids are self-diagnosing themselves with all kinds of alleged mental disorders.

A gang of college students at Arizona State University (ASU) committed to “social justice” as redefined by leftists are trying to get Kyle Rittenhouse kicked out of ASU’s online nursing school, calling him a “bloodthirsty murderer” who makes the campus “unsafe.” They want to “abate” the “danger” posed by Rittenhouse’s virtual presence in an online nursing class. In the real world, where many of us still live and move and have our being, this is called cancelling or industrial-strength bullying.

In addition to demanding the administration “withdraw” Rittenhouse from the school, the four oppressive, tyrannical, exclusionary, leftwing organizations—MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanx de Aztlán), Students for Socialism, Students for Justice in Palestine, and the Multicultural Solidarity Coalition—are demanding that the school issue a public statement against the “racist murderer Kyle Rittenhouse.”

Rittenhouse is the teen who was recently unanimously acquitted of two homicide charges, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment. One count of unlawful possession of a firearm and one count of curfew violation were dismissed by the judge. There was no evidence provided during the trial proving Rittenhouse was guilty of any crime or suggesting he was motivated by racism. In fact, even the prosecution’s witnesses undermined the fantastical tale that Rittenhouse is a racist, bloodthirsty murderer, hell-bent on vigilantism. And yet, the self-identifying “social justice” warriors want Rittenhouse punished.

Their actions are worse than those of vigilantes—of which Rittenhouse is not one. Their libelous attacks against Rittenhouse and their demands that Rittenhouse—who has been found innocent of all charges—be refused entrance to a state university are the actions of vengeful criminals and petty tyrants with big egos and cultural power wielded in support of gross injustice.

The lack of awareness of their own ignorance, hypocrisy, and control-freakish impulses is not a poison affecting only leftist millennials. They’ve drunk deeply from the cup of arsenic prepared for them by leftist boomers who took control of all cultural institutions decades ago and are desperately gripping those institutions as they feel their grubby fingers being pried loose.

One of those boomers is the politically immortal harpy Hillary Clinton, who in a recent interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, said this:

[W]hat we’ve seen sadly in the last several years is not new … but it is, unfortunately, turbo-charged by the combination of demagogues, social media that is more interested, frankly, in profitability than the rule of law or unity, that feeds disinformation in a way that strips people to the core of their insecurities and their fears. …

I think we’re really on the precipice … of seeing people, particularly in the Republican Party, but not only there, who truly just want power, power to impose their views, power to exploit financial advantage, power to implement a religious point of view. …

[B]ecause of the way we are getting our information today and because of the lack of gatekeepers and people who have a historic perspective, who can help us understand what we are seeing, there is a real vulnerability in the electorate to the kind of demagoguery and disinformation that, unfortunately, the other side is really good at exploiting.

Who exactly are the “demagogues” who are more interested in “profitability than the rule of law or unity”?

Are these “demagogues” the climate alarmists who profit from frightening children? Are they the race-baiting entrepreneurs who profit from keeping hate and fear alive and then sell their snake oil seminars to government schools and corporate America to end hate and fear?

Who is least interested in the “rule of law”?

Is it those who support election integrity, border security, anti-theft laws, and the Second Amendment or those who seek to make voter fraud, illegal immigration, and looting easier and who want to jettison the Second Amendment?

Is it primarily Republicans who seek power to impose their views?

Who denies Americans the ability to choose how, where, and what their children are taught? Who insists that their sexuality beliefs and theirs alone be taught in our “inclusive” government schools? Who allows teachers to call those who disagree names like “transphobe” and “homophobe”? Who wants to teach all children the racist fiction that all white people are oppressors? Who demands all teachers use incorrect pronouns in the service of the “trans” superstition or be fired? Who is demanding an 18-year-old found innocent in a court of law be punished?

Hillary Clinton doesn’t fear that Republicans seek “power to implement a religious point of view.” She and other leftists fear that theologically orthodox Christians may remain free to exercise their religion. And she and her ideological allies seek to disseminate their divisive, bigoted, anti-Christian, anti-constitutional views all across the nation.

Clinton claims in her own special unifying and non-ironic way that “the other side” is “really good at exploiting demagoguery and disinformation.” Oh, really?

Which side created and promoted the fake Russian Collusion scam and spent $38 million dollars of taxpayer money to promote, “investigate,” and prosecute the scam?

Which side claimed in fake dudgeon that Hunter Biden’s computer was not Hunter Biden’s computer?

Which side had a New York Post story about Biden’s computer with all its unseemly content about sexual perversion and influence-peddling buried until after the 2020 Election?

Which side promoted a fantastical tale about former President Trump watching prostitutes urinate, while burying a true story about Hunter Biden frolicking naked with two prostitutes?

Who wrote endless stories about the Trump children’s legitimate businesses while saying nothing about nouvel artiste Hunter Biden earning millions on the sale of his “art” to anonymous customers?

Which side calls the Jan. 6 riot a violent armed insurrection even though no guns were fired by the “violent armed insurrectionists,” while calling months of rioting, looting, and arson during which government property and police were attacked—which is the definition of “insurrection”—”mostly peaceful protests”?

Clinton’s solution to the problems she outlined? She wants more “gatekeepers” to censor the alleged “demagoguery and disinformation” that “the other side is really good at exploiting” and more people who have a “historic perspective.” Maybe Clinton doesn’t know the difference between “historic” and “historical.” While Nikole Hannah-Jones’s 1619 Project could possibly be deemed “historic” in its inanity and in helping to fan the flames of righteous indignation under the “other side,” it certainly lacks “historical perspective.”

If Clinton wants more people who have a historical perspective, I recommend Victor Davis Hanson.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Rittenhouse-and-Justice-in-a-Leftwing-Dystopia.mp3

Written by Michael Cook

Last September President Trump issued an executive order which banned instruction in critical race theory in government agencies and institutions which had federal contracts. He wanted to combat offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping.

On his first day in office, President Biden revoked that order. Not only that, he turbocharged critical race theory by requiring all federal agencies to prioritize and create opportunities for communities which have been historically underserved.

But what is critical race theory? As American journalist Christopher Rufo – who has become one of its leading critics — wrote in the New York Post:

Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy. Yet most Americans have never heard of it — and of those who have, many don’t understand it. This must change. We need to know what it is so we can know how to fight it.

In this 16-minute video Rufo runs through the origins, principles, and policies of critical race theory. Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, knows what he is talking about – he has created a database of more than a thousand stories of twisted, counter-cultural thinking.

Most people have a kneejerk reaction to Critical Race Theory – it’s either angelically good or demonically bad. After this rapid-fire, well-organized sketch of the dangers it poses you’ll know why it’s more the latter.

This article was originally published at Mercatornet.com.

Written by Michael Barone

Speech suppression is a habit that the Biden administration and its liberal supporters can’t seem to break. Many staffers may have picked up the habit in their student years: Colleges and universities have been routinely censoring “politically incorrect” speech for the last 30 years. As Thomas Sowell noted, “There are no institutions in America where free speech is more severely restricted than in our politically correct colleges and universities, dominated by liberals.”

Now, the Biden administration seems to be giving the colleges and universities some serious competition. Like many Democrats during the Trump presidency, they have come to see suppression of “fake news” as the ordinary course of business and indeed a prime responsibility of social media platforms.

For decades, print and broadcast media have been dominated by liberals, but Facebook, Google and Twitter have developed a stranglehold over the delivery of news which exceeds anything that the three major broadcast networks and a few national newspapers every enjoyed. If they suppress a story or a line of argument, it largely disappears from public view. And to the extent that it lingers, it can be stigmatized by these multibillion-dollar companies as “misinformation” or “fake news.”

Speech suppression was exactly what White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki had in mind last week when she called on Facebook to suppress 12 accounts that she said were spreading “misinformation” about COVID-19 vaccines. These accounts, she said July 15, were “producing 65% of vaccine misinformation on social media platforms.”

“Facebook needs to move more quickly to remove harmful, violative posts. Posts that would be within their policy for removal often remain up for days, and that’s too long. The information spreads too quickly.”

And she wasn’t aiming her demand at just Facebook. “You shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others,” she added a day later. The message was surely not lost on these companies, whose fabulously successful business models are vulnerable to government disruption.

Like most speech suppressors, Psaki protested her good intentions. As did her boss, President Joe Biden, who, when asked about Facebook on Friday, said simply, “They’re killing people.” The implication is that any advice contrary to the current recommendations of public health officials — contrary to “the science” — is bound to increase the death toll.

This is more in line with Cardinal Bellarmine’s view of science than Galileo’s. As Galileo knew, science is not acceptance of holy writ but learning from observation and experiment. Today, in dealing with a novel and deadly virus, current science is a body of hypotheses only partly tested and subject to revision based on emerging evidence.

There’s a long list of things once believed to be “misinformation” about COVID that are now widely accepted. One prime example: the possibility that the coronavirus was accidentally released from the Wuhan lab. For more than a year, this was widely treated as a wacky right-wing conspiracy theory. Facebook slapped “warnings” on it and boasted that it reduced readership — i.e., suppressed speech.

Then, in May, former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade, in an article that Facebook let slip through, argued a lab leak was likelier than animal-to-human transmission, and a group of 18 bioscientists called for a deeper investigation. The Biden administration, to its credit, soon reversed itself and opened its own investigation and, reportedly, multiple officials now believe the lab leak theory is likely correct. Some “misinformation!”

That example provides powerful support for Galileo’s view that debate over scientific matters takes place best out in the open. But of course the urge to suppress speech is not limited to science. As conservative commentator Stephen L. Miller wrote, “Removing information on vaccines will translate right over to anything they think is misinformation on gun violence, or climate, or healthcare or what defines a man or woman. Which is why they are doing this.”

If you think that’s extravagant, consider that, as Townhall’s Guy Benson argued, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been stretching its ambit to studying gun violence and climate change even while letting its core mission of advancing public health atrophy, as shown by its inability to produce a COVID test.

It’s easy to imagine this administration pressuring Facebook and other social media to suppress information on other issues. For example, as the New York Post‘s Michael Goodwin noted, his paper’s negative stories about Hunter Biden‘s shady business dealings, which were largely blocked from public view in the weeks before the 2020 election.

Speech suppression is evidently habit-forming. Which is why a constitutional amendment was passed back in the 1790s guaranteeing “freedom of speech, and of the press.” Or is that obsolete in these modern times?

Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.

I am finally doing it: creating profiles on social media platforms that are friendlier to conservative points of view and that do not censor speech. This month I also installed Brave as my new web browser, ditching Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge, and I am very happy with the change.

Why am I motivated to make these changes now? Like so many others, I have had enough of the interference, outright censorship, suppression of conservative views, and suspension of accounts (which some people refer to as “Facebook Jail”). I am fed up with the unwelcome disclaimers by social media giants and partisan search engines that suggest my opinions and news posts are untrustworthy and/or dishonest. For these reasons, I have decided to say “goodbye” to liberal social media platforms.

I am leaving Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to join unbiased platforms such as MeWe, Parler, and Rumble.

Those who work behind the scenes at Facebook have admitted that they use algorithms to push religious–particularly conservative–content to the bottom of the pile, thereby rendering it effectively worthless on their platform.

Not only have the despots at Twitter had the gall to flag the tweets of President Donald J. Trump, we have also seen them suspend the New York Post’s account for posting an alarming story about the contents found on Hunter Biden’s laptop computer just before the election, thereby affecting the election.

On this topic, our friend, Dave Olsson, pointed out in a post on his blog how Google manipulated search results leading up to the presidential election. He quotes The Epoch Times which reported that:

Google shifted a “bare minimum” of six million votes in the Nov. 3 presidential election by pushing its political agenda onto its users, a research psychologist has claimed.

In an interview with Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Dr. Robert Epstein, a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in California, suggested that the big tech company’s search manipulation could have prompted millions of Americans to shift their votes toward Democrats.

There is no doubt that Big Media and Big Tech not only operate from a left-leaning social/political worldview but also that they are activists for Leftist causes, promoting anti-family, anti-freedom narratives while at the same time suppressing conservative news and opinions.

Over the past several years, Big Tech has dispensed with any pretense of neutrality. Those of us who have used social media platforms to get our messages out to a wider audience have seen how these tech giants have become emboldened to counter, flag, suspend, and censor our posts and content.

In the meantime, these same Big Tech Overlords are working hard to persuade and deceive our unsuspecting neighbors. We, the discerning public, have no means to flag or post a “fact check” to the misleading, deceitful, explicit, and disturbing content promulgated by Leftists. Their storylines go unmolested.

You might think that advertising runs the internet, but it is the behemoth of data behind the advertising curtain that generates the real profits. As we use and engage with websites and social media, we are being followed all the time: tracked through our phones, watches, tablets, cars, smart speakers, and a multitude of other gadgets, gizmos, and devices.

This profusion of collected data, public demographics as well as personal preferences, truly has generated billions of dollars for these tech companies, but at what price?

So why are we–socially conservative, Christian citizens–allowing Google, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to profit from our data?

We shouldn’t. In fact, we must make a plan to migrate away from these exploitative platforms to freer alternatives.

If you have had enough of politically motivated bias and suppression, I encourage you to join me and thousands of other conservative activists in starting accounts at MeWe (instead of Facebook), Parler (instead of Twitter), and Rumble (instead of YouTube).

Instead of using Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge as your web browser, switch to Brave.

Rather than choosing Google, Bing or Yahoo as your Internet search engine, consider Duck, Duck Go, which does not track you, collect your IP address or personal information, or create any kind of personal profile about its users.

Abandoning these tech giants is a simple and practical way for conservatives to take action in the political arena. Information is power–the less you give, the less you empower those who oppose the values you espouse and defend.

To the best of my knowledge, these alternative platforms are safe and guaranteed not to interfere with our exercise of free speech. The following information regarding MeWe and Parler will help you understand the benefits of joining their platforms.

MeWe is a privately owned platform started by Mark Weinstein. You won’t find ads, spyware, algorithms, censorship, facial recognition, or fact checkers on MeWe. Unlike with Facebook, your personal data is not sold.

MeWe is a free platform but does offer an upgrade to MeWe Pro for a small monthly fee.

Parler is a privately owned platform started in 2018 by John Matze and Jared Thomson. They created the platform after becoming “exhausted with a lack of transparency in big tech [and] ideological suppression.”

Parleys are the Parler equivalent to tweets. While they can be longer than tweets, they are limited to 1,000 characters.

As with Twitter, Parler uses hashtags to broaden the reach of your content and ensure that your parleys will be seen.

Parler allows you to comment, echo (share), and vote (like) people’s parleys, and also gives you the ability to moderate comments.

The switchover to these new platforms will take some time, but I hope to have completed the migration and closed all of our Facebook and Twitter accounts by Memorial Day 2021. I encourage you to do the same. We should not allow Big Tech to stifle the dissemination of our conservative beliefs and online influence. Abandoning these large left-wing platforms is one practical way to do so.

Read more:

Farewell Twitter, Goodbye YouTube (The Stream)

YouTube, Twitter Against Trump (The Epoch Times)

REPORT: Zuckerberg Spent Half A Billion Dollars Coercing States To Adopt Pro-Dem Turnout Measures
(The National Pulse)

*WARNING: Explicit content not suitable for younger readers*

A recent New York Post story  illuminates the tragic consequences of the sexual revolution that separated sex from procreation, sex from marriage, and marriage from children. Children are intentionally and cavalierly separated from their biological parents.

The Post tells the story of peculiar 40-year-old City University New York (CUNY) math professor Ari Nagel who has sired 22 children with 18 women over the past 12 years.

Sometimes he “donates” his sperm the old-fashioned way by having sex with women. Sometimes he “donates” his sperm by masturbating—with the help of porn viewed on his cell phone—into a cup in Target or Starbucks men’s bathrooms and rushing it to an ovulating recipient, who then scampers into the women’s restroom to deposit the donation where the sun don’t shine. Nagel says, “‘It’s better when it’s fresh.’”

With Target’s new co-ed bathroom policy, he will no longer have to make that long trek from the men’s restroom to a waiting recipient. He can masturbate in the women’s restroom with the recipient waiting in the neighboring stall to make her deposit. His donation will be uber-fresh.

Sometimes when Nagel is “donating” the old-fashioned way to a lesbian who has never had sex with a man, her partner will sit in bed with them holding her partner’s hand for moral support. Loss of virginity can be traumatic, so it’s nice to see that human compassion still exists.

Single women and lesbians all over the country have found Nagel via word-of-mouth, Craigslist, and “Known Donor Registry, a free website for those looking for sperm donors.” They solicit his services because of his “’good looks, personality and high sperm count.” Man-boy Nagel toots his own horn, claiming that his sperm count is “off the charts.”

Nagel’s children range in age from 11 months to 12-years-old and live in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Virginia, Illinois, and Israel. According to the Post, “Some he sees once a week, some he sees once a year, some he’s never met.”

Half of Nagel’s paycheck is garnished as a result of five mothers successfully suing him for child-support. But that’s okay with Daddy Nagel: “‘Financially, it’s bankrupted me, but I’m still very happy with the way things turned out….I got 22 million in the bank — in my kids.’”

His kids? Does he mean the ones he sees once a week, or the ones he sees once a year, or the ones he’s never met? How valuable to his kids is he, if his primary investment in them was a porn-induced teaspoon of semen delivered in a Target men’s bathroom.

Glib New York television news anchors, Sukanya Krishnan and Scott Stanford, interviewed a smirking Nagel on his unseemly hobby, mischaracterizing Nagel’s rejection of normal sperm donation channels as evidence of his desire for a more “rewarding experience.” Waxing sycophantic, Krishnan exults, “He knows most of the children and has connections with them, which I think is great!”

Only fools would think that men who know most of their children but raise none are “great” fathers.

In the world of “progressivism” where virtually every desire transmogrifies into a “right” which society is obligated to accommodate, facilitate, and celebrate, the rights of children are little discussed. Women who are not blessed with marriage or choose not to marry are not entitled to children. And those  who choose to be in intrinsically sterile homoerotic unions—that is, unions that are by design non-procreative—should not be procuring children. Children have intrinsic rights, one of which is to be raised whenever possible by a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents. This right supersedes the desires of single women and lesbians to bear and raise children.

Follow IFI on Social Media!

Be sure to check us out on social media for other great articles, quips, quotes, pictures, memes, events and updates.

Like us on Facebook HERE.
Subscribe to us on YouTube HERE!
Follow us on Twitter @ProFamilyIFI