PragerU, Christopher Rufo, and Blaze TV publicly congratulated Dave Rubin and the man to whom he is legally married on the impending births of two babies via two surrogates. With friends like that, conservatives don’t need enemies.

They’re not alone. Matt Whitlock, senior advisor for communications and digital at the National Republican Senatorial Committee and volunteer faculty member at the Leadership Institute, which “teaches conservatives of all ages how to succeed in politics, government, and the media,” also congratulated Rubin.

And both Meghan McCain and Megyn Kelly enthusiastically congratulated Rubin and his faux-husband. That’s not surprising in that both women are long-time enthusiastic activists for the cause of normalizing homosexuality. While no one will be surprised by their “LGBTQ” “progressivism,” we should be troubled because McCain identifies as a Republican and “lifelong conservative,” and Kelly identifies as a Catholic. Conservatives ought not be indifferent to the presence of “LGBTQ” collaborators within the GOP or the church. They are corrupting both the Republican Party and the church from within.

How many leaders in the GOP, Republican members of Congress, or members of the pundit class who identify as conservative are willing to say that no one is entitled to a baby?

How many will say babies are not commodities? How many will say genetic material ought not be bought and sold?

How many will say babies deserve and have a right to both a mother and a father, preferably the man and woman who produced them?

Who will say publicly that it’s wrong for women to rent out their bodies, and it’s wrong for anyone to pay women for the use of their bodies for the illicit project of gestating a baby?

Who in the GOP will say that if two men (or women) reject true marriage in favor of a naturally—that is, by design—non-reproductive relationship, they should live with the consequences? Sodomy is not equivalent to sexually complementary intercourse. And by design, sodomitic mimicry of intercourse is non-reproductive. All efforts to mimic intercourse and to obtain the fruit of such unions–including shopping for eggs as Rubin shared he did–by homosexuals are morally repugnant and selfish.

While the desire to procreate is natural and good, it is unnatural and evil to reject the procreative act as ordained by God for marriage and then demand its fruits.

In describing his exit from the Democrat Party, Dave Rubin has in the past cited the intolerance of the left as his reason. With some true conservative Twitter commenters criticizing Rubin’s selfish pursuit of his own desires at the expense of the needs of the children he is acquiring, some leftists are suggesting that such criticism reveals the intolerance of conservatives. Evidently, they don’t understand the meaning of “tolerance” or the claims of conservatives.

First, tolerance refers to enduring or putting up with something one finds objectionable. Tolerance does not mean affirmation, approval, or celebration.

Second, membership in the GOP or in the kingdom of God necessarily entails holding principled convictions. Both groups hold principled views on what constitutes the good. They hold views on which acts should be prescribed or proscribed, tolerated or not tolerated, celebrated or denounced. While Christians and conservatives must forbear the expression of the view that homosexuals make “good parents,” we are entitled to say—and should say—that children need, want, and deserve a mother and father.

While all children are blessings to those who raise them, not all family structures are blessings to children. Being a kind, loving person is necessary but not alone sufficient to be a good parent. Being able to provide materially for a child is necessary but not alone sufficient to be a good parent. Choosing to embrace a homosexual identity, choosing a person of the same sex as an erotic/romantic partner makes one a poor parent notwithstanding any admirable qualities.

If all that were necessary and sufficient to make a good parent were the ability to love and provide materially for a child, then society should affirm sibling unions. And to be logically and morally consistent, anyone who celebrates the purchase of two babies by not-in-reality-married Dave Rubin should celebrate the purchase of babies by close-kin lovers.

Those who claim to be Republican or conservative and either celebrate Dave Rubin’s baby acquisitions or refuse to criticize his actions are harming the GOP, the conservative movement, the church, children, and America.

Cultural commentator Allie Beth Stuckey once said, “if conservatives aren’t willing to conserve the most fundamental fact of life—the reality of male and female—then we’re not conserving anything.” The same goes for the most fundamental natural institution: the nuclear family, central to which is a mother and father.

If conservatives don’t stand boldly and perseveringly for true marriage and the rights of children, choosing instead cowardly or foolish genuflection to Log Cabin Republicans and Republicans obsessed with fiscal matters, the GOP will become unworthy of support.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Celebrate-Gay-Libertarian-Dave-Rubins-Purchase-of-Two-Babies.mp3

The headline to this article is not sensationalistic. It is not click bait. It is truth. Shocking truth. Yes, Instagram has designated videos of live worship on the streets to be in violation of community guidelines, calling the content “harmful.” Let the outrage be felt and heard.

Sean Feucht is a worship leader and songwriter who recently ran for political office in California. He is also a conservative Christian.

On June 23 he tweeted, “This is what we’ve come to in America!

“Instagram is now classifying my WORSHIP videos as ‘harmful or false information’

“Religious Liberty? Freedom of Speech? Big Tech censorship?”

Included in the tweet was a screenshot from Instagram, explaining that the company had removed his video post because it was violation of Community Standards. (Oh, those dread community standards again!)

Specifically, Instagram stated, “Story removed for harmful or false information.”

What on earth does this mean? What can it possibly mean?

Feucht’s tweet got the attention of Missouri’s U.S. Senator Josh Hawley who tweeted, “Cancel culture meets #BigTech. Now @instagram is censoring a Christian worship leader who wants to post videos of praise and worship from places where there has recently been unrest. And that doesn’t meet ‘community standards’? Can’t wait to hear the explanation for this.”

A few years ago, I repeatedly challenged Facebook for censoring some of my posts for alleged violation of community standards, exposing the rank hypocrisy of their decisions.

For example, my factual, fairly-worded post dealing with LGBT issues would be deemed hateful, while the most blasphemous, unimaginably profane, anti-Christian Facebook pages were allowed to operate without restriction. Seriously?

Thankfully, in most cases, with the help of an internal contact, Facebook reinstated my posts (or, restored my status). But other colleagues of mine did not fare so well, having their pages permanently shut down for alleged violation of the dreaded (and oh so ambiguous) community standards.

It seems that “hate” meant one thing for one group and something entirely different for the other. (For a recent video exposé, see here.)

When it comes to YouTube and Google, the battle continues, with large channels like Prager U still experiencing discrimination and unequal treatment. (Where are all the social justice warriors calling for equality? Somehow, they don’t seem to be raising their voices for Prager U.)

In my own experience, after having over 1,000 of my channel’s videos branded unsuitable for advertising in a single stroke (!), YouTube has actually been fair with me, even surprising me at times by what it approves for monetization. At the same time, we know that the other shoe could drop at any moment and suddenly, we could be banned.

It is a big mistake to put our trust in Big Tech.

What happened with Instagram, though, seems even more bizarre and extreme. What on earth were the all-powerful censors thinking?

There are endless videos on Instagram showing disturbing clips from the recent protests and riots, all of them somehow in conformity with community standards. (Right now, over on Twitter, I’m watching a video of the “CHOP” call from Seattle, with specific reference to guillotines. I imagine similar videos can be found on Instagram.)

But when a video is posted showing Christian worship in the midst of these protests, it is removed for alleged “harmful or false information.”

Since there is nothing “false” about the video, then it must be considered “harmful” – hence the headline to this article.

Is this actually what Instagram meant? Could they possibly be claiming that worshiping the Lord on the streets of our divided cities is harmful?

If so, I would encourage every worship leader and every worship team to hit the streets of their own communities, posting similar videos and sharing them as widely as possible, starting on Instagram. (Hey, it’s a great thing to do anyway and just what America needs.)

If Instagram has made a mistake, I hope they own up to it and say, “We totally blew it! There is no excuse.” Otherwise, this means spiritual war.

So, no hatred. No carnal aggression. No fleshly anger. And, of course, of course, of course, no violence.

But lots of prayer. Lots of worship. Lots of preaching. And lots of standing up and being heard. If not now, then when?

Ironically, as if to drill the point home, as I as writing this article, I spotted another tweet from Sen. Hawley from a few hours ago. He wrote, “Now @Twitter is actively censoring Bible verses? Seriously? Why?”

Hawley retweeted another tweet from Sean Feucht, stating, “Not only is big tech blocking worship videos, now they’re blocking Bible verses about PEACE!

“RT if you believe social media needs more peace, more worship, and less censorship of Jesus followers.”

Feucht included a screenshot of tweets from Beni Johnson, then using the handle @prayfor5, which at present is not appearing on Twitter. Her tweets, posting Bible verses, were blocked, with the note, “This Tweet may include sensitive content.”

So, worship is deemed “harmful” and Scripture verses about peace are deemed “sensitive content.” Really?

Let us, then, flood Big Tech with the Word and worship. And let us report and challenge every unjust infraction about the practicing of our faith.

It’s beyond time.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com.

How would you define tolerance? The essence of the standard societal and dictionary definitions boils down to this – tolerance is the ability or willingness to live among and get along with people whose opinions and behavior are different, even antithetical, to one’s own.

It is interesting to note that Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “tolerance” as: The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.

Dave Rubin, host of The Rubin Report, states, “Whatever differences we have, tolerating others’ opinions is a prerequisite of a functioning and free society.” If what he says is true, is it any wonder that there is so much dysfunction in our country? Listen, as Rubin, a self-identified liberal, shares his perspective on the state of tolerance today within the mainstream media, the Left, and the Right, and asks the question “Who is tolerant?” His answer might surprise you.