As city after city in America is under assault, with buildings on fire and bloodied bodies laying in the streets, we need to unite in our condemnation of these violent riots.

There is nothing righteous about looting. Or bashing someone over the head with a skateboard and pelting him with stones. Or vandalizing the store of a black business owner.

This is chaos. This is anarchy. This is lawlessness. This is wrong.

We can be outraged over the killing of George Floyd and aggrieved over the sin of racism without resorting to this.

Here are four reasons why these race riots do far more harm than good.

First, they came at a time when more and more Americans were willing to talk about apparent racial injustice. As tweeted by the influential black rapper and podcaster, Zuby, “The USA temporarily had a moment where virtually ALL Americans were united in empathy and sympathy, over the pointless, awful killing of a fellow citizen.

“People of ALL colours and ALL political stripes, unanimous on an issue of clear injustice.”

“That’s extremely rare…”

He continued, “Now this unity and sympathy has been divided, diluted and misdirected as people fight on the streets, steal from their neighbours, and torch their own communities.”

“It’s fricking sad to see.”

“I’ll say it again. Some people thrive on division and anger. They don’t want solutions.” (A hat tip to my colleague John Zmirak for these references. He responded to Zuby’s tweets with his own: “The looters in Minneapolis no more represent black Americans than the neo-Nazi thugs in Charlottesville represented me.”)

As I emphasized in my latest article, “Hope for Black Americans,” this was a rare time when law and order conservatives like Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Dan Bongino united with Christian conservatives like Franklin Graham in condemning the killing of a black American by a police officer. Yet the focus has now shifted to the violence and lawlessness of the riots. How on earth is this positive or helpful?

Second, the riots paint a negative picture of black Americans, as if this is what “they” do. As expressed in a May 31 email, conservative Christian activist Scott Lively “contends that the purpose of Black Lives Matter rioting is to INCREASE Racism to justify the Marxist race-war narrative, and laments that too many conservatives and constitutionalists fall into the trap of lumping the innocent majority of Black Americans with the trained thugs of the BLM and the useful idiots who run with them.”

Obviously, Lively’s words are confrontational and even inflammatory, and one can debate his larger thesis. But his overall point is clear: the race riots, allegedly carried out in the memory of George Floyd, play into the worst racial stereotypes of black Americans. I ask again: how on earth is this helpful?

Third, these riots are destructive in their very nature, appealing to our worst instincts. As I tweeted on May 31,

“Peaceful protests can be righteous, godly, and powerful, even reflecting the Spirit of Christ. Rioting and looting are unrighteous, ungodly, and destructive, reflecting the spirit of lawlessness and chaos and murder. Which spirit is that?”

One of my black friends, a historian with a strong social conscience, said to me, “Anything that comes to kill steal and destroy is the enemy” (meaning, from Satan; see John 10:10). Precisely so.

In response to my tweet, someone challenged me, saying, “Forgive me if I’m wrong but didn’t Jesus clear out the temple with a whip?”

I replied,

“1) He acted in perfect harmony with the Lord. We often do not. 2) He did not kill anyone. He did not set the Temple on fire. He did not destroy the businesses of honest, hardworking people. I could go on and on. Surely you must know this.”

Enough said.

Fourth, there appears to be strong evidence that these riots are being aided and abetted by bad players.

Pastor Jim Garlow reported via email on May 31, “A couple of hours ago, some bussed-in protesters were attacking the La Mesa, CA police station only a few miles from where I live.

“A close friend of mine who is black has reported that the Minneapolis Airport was full of people today being flown in to create havoc. Many were being bussed in. And now we are hearing reports of pallets of bricks being dropped off at street corners in cities to give weapons to the anarchists. The George Soros types have found their moment. We pray for our President, governors and mayors.”

This was confirmed by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, himself a liberal Democrat and an African American Muslim:

“We have evidence that outsiders have been present and, in some cases, have played a very negative role. But I’ve been talking with protesters and trying to get a sense of who some of these folks are and I’ve heard mixed things. Some of the negative stuff has come from people in Minnesota and some of it has come from people on the outside. What I’d say is we’ve got enough to handle on our own and that what we really need to do is refocus on justice for Mr. Floyd. And the negative behavior, looting, arson, does not help us achieve that goal.”

Conservative broadcaster (and former NYPD officer) Dan Bongino was even more blunt: “This isn’t a protest anymore, this is a coup,” he said.

He added, “This is an organized internal coup by a small group of agitators acting as a domestic terror group. That’s a fact.”

No wonder that President Trump has now declared Antifa a terrorist organization.

Groups like this rip at the very fabric of our nation, and their goals are vastly different than the goals of the vast majority of Americans.

Let us then work together for equality and justice. One way we can do that is by denouncing these violent riots. Then, we can refocus on the killing of George Floyd and the larger questions of equal treatment under the law.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com.

Written by Pastor Scott Lively

What we call the pro-family movement is a component of the larger conservative movement and deals with matters of sexuality and the natural family. Its American roots are in the cultural backlash to the Marxist revolution of the 1960s that turned family-centered society on its head and swapped the Judeo-Christian morality of our founding for Soviet-style “political correctness.”

Before the 1960s there wasn’t any need for a “pro-family” movement because family values had been the overwhelming consensus of the western world for centuries. Indeed, so surprised were Americans about the cultural revolution that it took nearly twenty years for the conservatives to mount a truly effective response to it. That came under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

The 60’s revolution was not grounded in the Marxist orthodoxy of Lenin and Stalin, but the Cultural Marxism of Herbert Marcuse’s Frankfort School, which envisioned sexual anarchy, not a “workers revolt,” as the key to dismantling Judeo-Christian civilization. The natural core constituency for this ideology was the underground “gay” movement whose dream of social acceptance was not possible without a complete transformation of American sexual morality. Thus, beginning in the late 1940s, Marxist organizer Harry Hay, so-called “father of the American gay movement” was also “father” of the (then hidden) army of “gay” activists most responsible for the “culture war” that exploded in the 60’s and continues today.

America’s Marxist revolution was therefore a “sexual revolution” whose overwhelming success vindicated Marcuse’s destructive vision and became the primary tool of the one-world government elites for softening resistance to their domination by breaking the family-centered society which is every nation’s greatest source of strength, stability and self-sufficiency.

Importantly, though primarily driven behind the scenes by “gays,” the first goal was not legitimization of homosexual sodomy but the normalization of heterosexual promiscuity. This was the motive and strategy that drove “closeted” 1940s and 50s homosexual activist Alfred Kinsey’s fraudulent “science” attacking the marriage-based sexual ethic as “repressive” and socially harmful. It also drove the launch of the modern porn industry, beginning with Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Magazine (Hefner called himself “Kinsey’s pamphleteer”). It drove and defined the battles in the courts where sexual morality was systematically “reformed” by Cultural Marxist elites on the U.S. Supreme Court: contraception on demand to facilitate “fornication without consequences” (Griswold v Connecticut 1966), abortion on demand as the backup system to failed contraception (Roe v Wade 1973), and finally legalization of homosexual sodomy (Lawrence v Texas 2003).

Note the thirty year gap between Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas. That major delay in the Marxist agenda was achieved by the election of Ronald Reagan, under whom the pro-family movement became a major political force. That gap also highlights a critical fact: that “street activism” may be essential to any political cause but the real key to the culture war is the U.S. Supreme Court. By 1981 when Ronald Reagan took power the Marxists had nearly succeeded in collapsing the nation’s family and economic infrastructure and the LGBT juggernaut had come completely out of the shadows and taken its place at the head of the cultural blitzkrieg it had been steering from the beginning. Reagan stopped that juggernaut by putting Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court, the lion of constitutional originalism who wrote the majority opinion in Bowers v Hardwick (1986) which affirmed (not created) the constitutional right of states to criminalize homosexual sodomy and other harmful sexual conduct in the public interest.

Reagan and Scalia stopped the sexual revolution in its tracks and made it possible for the pro-family movement to begin restoring family values in society, which we strove diligently to do. I got my start in Christian social activism in those heady days and served as State Communications Director for the No Special Rights Act in Oregon in 1992 which forbade the granting of civil rights minority status based on sexual conduct. We fell short in Oregon but a Colorado version of our bill passed the same year. We had in essence won the culture war with that victory given that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that minority status designation required three things: a history of discrimination, political powerlessness, and immutable (unchangeable) status (such as skin color). We had a slam-dunk win on at least two of the three criteria and it would have been just a matter of time before we passed the No Special Rights law from coast to coast.

However, Reagan had been prevented by the elites from putting a second Scalia on the court in the person of Robert Bork, and was forced by the unprecedented political “borking” of Mr. Bork to accept their man Anthony Kennedy to fill the seat instead. Just ten years later, Kennedy served his function by writing the majority opinion killing the Colorado law in Romer v Evans (1996), audaciously declaring that the court didn’t need to apply its three-part constitution test to the No Special Rights Act because it was motivated by “animus” (hate) and thus did not represent a legitimate exercise of the state’s regulatory authority. The ruling was all the more outrageous given that it was only possibly through a blatant abuse of the court’s own judicial authority. Kennedy’s “disapproval = hate” lie set the tone for the political left from that point forward.

In Lawrence v Texas, Kennedy delivered the coup-de-grace to Justice Scalia by striking down Bowers v Hardwick and brazenly ruling that “public morality” cannot be the basis for law. Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority in all five SCOTUS opinions that have, in essence, established homosexual cultural supremacy in America, including the infamous and utterly unconstitutional Obergefell v Hodges (2015) “gay marriage” decision. He is, in my opinion, the worst and most culturally destructive jurist in the history of the court: the culprit (among many villainous candidates) most responsible for the current dysfunctional state of the family in America.

So where’s the “bright future” amidst this lamentation? It’s in the promise made and so-far kept by President Donald Trump to appoint only constitutional originalists to the supreme court. It is in the pleasantly surprising discovery that his first pick, Neil Gorsuch, seems from his first comments as a “supreme” to be a perfect choice to fill the “Scalia seat” on the court. It is in the hopeful rumors that Anthony Kennedy is about to retire, and the simple fact that ultra-hard leftist Ruth Bader Ginsberg and leftist Steven Broyer are of an age that their seats could at any time be vacated by voluntary or involuntary retirement.

In short, the bright future of the pro-family movement is in the hands of the man we hired to drain the swamp in Washington DC, and who hasn’t yet backed down in that fight despite the remarkable scorched-earth campaign of destruction and discreditation being waged against him by the establishment elites of both parties, Hollywood and the media.

I must admit that after Obergefell I began to think that the pro-family movement had lost the culture war, but I now believe there is real hope, not just for reclaiming some lost ground, but possibly of reversing all of the “gains” of the hard left over the past half century. A solid majority of true constitutional originalists could actually restore the legal primacy of the natural family in America fairly quickly, and our cultural healing could quickly follow.

As the leftist elites and street activists continue their all-hands-on-deck attempted “borking” of President Trump, let’s not forget why they’re doing it. His political survival means the end of theirs. I can’t think of a brighter future than that for our nation.

This article was originally posted at ScottLively.net

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
~2 Corinthians 11:14~

The United States was founded by people of faith, people who espoused a biblical worldview. That worldview, bolstered by a conscience that yearns for justice, compelled the writing of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration defined the nature and source of human rights; the United States Constitution detailed those rights, protecting them from government transgress.

The Founders secured the very impetus for the colonies in America with the First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Notice no reference to a wall of “separation of church and state?” Early settlers desired to live out their faith, to worship according to personal understanding of the scriptures, not by compulsion of a state run and controlled church akin to the Church of England. Government was seen as a necessary evil to provide for national defense and some infrastructure; the U.S. Constitution was clearly written to free the citizen and robustly constrain government.

Our history as an independent people, individually responsible for our own actions and consequences, but keenly aware of rights and justice infuses our national DNA. Rights and justice are not, in and of themselves, evil.

The key is WHO is the author of the rights?

The Founders believed the Bible and that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel created men (ie. all men and all women) in His image. Life was precious, sacred, because the Lord God was its author.

But not all rights are true rights or even good. The idea of “human rights” sounds aspirational, lofty.

The Apostle Paul warned early followers of Jesus and the church at Corinth:

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Masquerading as an angel of light, gay rights activist Stephen Robert “Steve” Endean founded the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) in 1980. The mission of the organization:

The Human Rights Campaign and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation together serve as America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve LGBTQ equality. By inspiring and engaging individuals and communities, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBTQ people and realize a world that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

The Human Rights Campaign envisions a world where lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people are ensured equality and embraced as full members of society at home, at work and in every community.

Ah ha! The crux of the matter is not “human rights” but rather “LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning) rights.” Why the disguise (aka masquerade)?

Steve Endean knew full well that the average American in 1980 would not wholly endorse “alternative lifestyles.” Had he named the organization “Queer Rights Campaign” or “Lesbian Rights Campaign” Endean would have offended millions of families. But “Human Rights Campaign” sounded righteous and compassionate.

That is until we compare the mission statement with the foundation of America, a biblical worldview which undergirds our founding documents. What does the Bible have to say about those lifestyles?

Earlier in 1 Corinthians:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. — 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

And in Romans 1:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

. . .

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Now, having unmasked the true intent and nature of the “Human Rights Campaign,” it should come as no surprise that Endean’s unholy organization seeks to vilify those proclaiming truth and businesses not cowering to the HRC mandates. Since 2002, “HRC’s Corporate Equality Index report, released each fall, provides an in-depth analysis and rating of large U.S. employers and their policies and practices pertinent to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees. Businesses rated 100 percent are recognized in their ‘Best Places to Work’ list. All consumer-oriented businesses are included in their ‘Buying for Equality‘ guide.” [see below]

Businesses in America are rated according to their accommodation and celebration of “alternative lifestyles,” also known as sinful lifestyles. HRC President Chad Griffin writes:

In this 15th edition of the Corporate Equality Index we have seen the largest increase in top-rated businesses in the history of our survey with 517 employers earning perfect 100 percent scores. In addition, this year saw the CEI’s largest jump ever in businesses offering transgender-inclusive healthcare coverage — from 511 last year to 647 this year.

While there is much to do and many key civil rights fights ahead, thanks to these private sector leaders, the march towards greater equality is not slowing down. The LGBTQ community and the 887 businesses in the CEI will keep moving forward every day.

The HRC employs a carrot and stick tactic: CEI as carrot praises those businesses which affirm the LGBTQ agenda; HRC’s “The Export of Hate” as stick castigates any individuals or organizations who decry the same perverse agenda. Written at “The Export of Hate” site:

These individuals are spreading venomous rhetoric, outrageous theories and discredited science.

While this vicious brand of bigotry is currently finding little traction in the United States, public opinion in many other nations makes their words and work much more dangerous. In fact, their actions pose a fundamental threat to the safety of LGBT people around the world, and that threat is growing.

“The Export of Hate” lists familiar names of godly people and God-honoring organizations: attorney and pastor Scott Lively, ADF Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull, ACLJ Director of International Operations Jordan Sekulow, and even our good friend Peter LaBarbera. [See below]

The Bible instructs us to be wise as serpents, harmless as doves. Comparing the Bible and its principles and commands to the Human Rights Campaign mission, Corporate Equality Index, and HRC’s Export of Hate report reveals an unavoidable conclusion. The HRC is an unbiblical and evil entity.

The prophet Isaiah wrote:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

There could not be a more stark picture of that verse than the Human Rights Campaign, and believers in America must hold fast to biblical truth and wisdom and unmask ungodly evildoers “masquerading as angels of light.”

Download the IFI App!

We now have IFI mobile app that enables us to deliver great content based on the the “Tracks” you choose, including timely alerts, cultural commentaries, upcoming event notifications, links to our podcasts, video reports, and even daily Bible verses to encourage you. This great app is available for Android and iPhones.

Key Features:

• It’s FREE!
• Specific content for serious Christians
• Performs a spiritual assessment
• Sends you daily Scriptures to encourage and equip you
• You determine when and how much content you get

Readers may have noticed that each of these posts has begun with a citation from one or more articles on the topic of identity politics and then closes by highlighting a paraphilia. This time we will only excerpt two of my favorite writers – the Illinois Family Institute’s Laurie Higgins and Pastor Scott Lively.

These were first posted back in 2014, I began the article with this introduction:

The term “sexual orientation” is a fictitious socio-political construct invented by the left to promulgate the non-scientific idea that homosexual proclivities and temptations are somehow neutral, immutable characteristics that define a same-sex attracted person’s identity. Two well-respected cultural analysts shared their thoughts on the subject.

Laurie Higgins:

The term “sexual orientation” is a biased, political term created to equate heterosexuality and homosexuality. While homosexual activists and their ideological allies believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are flip sides of the sexuality coin, others believe–rightly–that homosexuality is a disordering of the sexual impulse.

“Sexual orientation” also connotes the idea that homosexuality is biological determined, immutable in all cases, and inherently moral, all of which are controversial assumptions.

Whereas homosexuality is constituted merely by subjective desire and volitional sexual acts that many consider immoral, heterosexuality is constituted by subjective desire, volitional acts that no one considers inherently immoral, and by biology and anatomy. And in terms of biology and anatomy, everyone is heterosexual.

Homosexuality is not merely one of several healthy and moral manifestations of sexuality. Rather, it is a disordering or perversion of the sexual impulse.

Our side needs to understand this and stop using the term “sexual orientation.”

Scott Lively:

Sexual orientation” is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions. So-called ‘sexual orientation’ is just a theory that lets people pretend that sexuality is a subjective state-of-mind and not an objective truth based on our self-evident physiological reality.

Sexual orientation” is a fictional socio-politcal construct invented by homosexual activists, and is their religious doctrine.

Another purpose of “sexual orientation” theory is to create a context in which homosexuality and heterosexuality hold equal status.

The notion of equivalency between homosexuality and heterosexuality is very important to pro-“gay” arguments. For one thing, it neutralizes health and safety arguments against the legitimization of homosexuality. For example, it is an uncontested fact that homosexual conduct spreads disease and dysfunction.

When reminded of this, “gay” sympathizers say, “heterosexuals do the same things.” This isn’t a logical defense of homosexuality per se, since two wrongs don’t make a right, but even so, the medical data shows that heterosexual behavior, even when promiscuous, really doesn’t result in nearly as many negative health consequences. However, it is an argument for treating homosexuality equally with heterosexuality, if the two were truly equivalent. But they are not.

A second reason for espousing the demise of equivalency is that equivalency allows “gay” activists to exploit the civil rights doctrines, which otherwise would not apply.” Discrimination, in the civil rights context, means treating equal parties unequally.

An anti-discrimination policy based upon “sexual orientation” is always the first step in the homosexual takeover of an organization, because it locks in pro-“gay” assumptions. From the adoption of this policy, the organization must accept as fact that homosexuality is immutable, equivalent to heterosexuality, and deserving of special protections without regard to public health considerations. Criticism of these positions, or even failure to affirm them, can be considered violations of the policy. Where such a policy is enacted, adoption of the rest of the homosexual political agenda is virtually inevitable. The conclusions are assured by these (false) premises. The takeover process varies slightly depending on the type of organization, but is predictable and easily recognized.

In summary, “sexual orientation” is a term that is used by homosexual activists to deceive both policy makers and the public about the nature of homosexual behavior. It frames the debate about homosexuality in such a way that the average person is tricked into accepting pro-“gay” presuppositions without challenge. This is even true of those people who continue to oppose the homosexuals’ political goals.

Once the presuppositions have been accepted, especially when they become “law” in anti-discrimination policies, resistance to the rest of the homosexual agenda becomes much, much more difficult.

The only effective strategy is to reject and refute the false assumptions of the fictitious “sexual orientation” socio-political theory, and re-frame the issues on a truthful foundation. “Sexual orientation” must be exposed for what it is: a nonsensical theory about sexuality invented by “gay” political strategists to serve their own selfish interests at the expense of the welfare of society as a whole.

Up next: Man’s Search for Meaning.

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

COMING SOON: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

COMING SOON: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT is Not a Color

“War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.”

This was the slogan of George Orwell’s fictional English Socialist Party (INGSOC) of Oceania, from his timeless dystopian novel “1984.”

Orwell depicted a mind-control technique employed by INGSOC called “doublethink,” which “describes the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.”

If the malleable masses could be made to believe self-contradictory, patently absurd and empirically impossible concepts as true, went Orwell’s thesis, they could then be made to believe, or do, anything.

We have entered an age that George Orwell might never have imagined. Today’s “American Socialist Party” (the secular left) has applied the doublethink mind-control technique on a grand scale.

Its slogan?

“Male is Female; Female is Male; Evil is good.”

Indeed, not only do secular leftists like Barack Obama stubbornly maintain that objective morality be treated as relative – that evil is good and good evil; they now demand that the immutable laws of physics and biology be similarly repealed.

There are things true and things untrue. It is true, for instance, that water is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen (H20). No amount of wishful thinking, angry foot-stomping, or even a tyrannical presidential edict issued to America’s public school chemistry classes can change this unchangeable reality.

It is likewise true that a person born with XX chromosomes is, and shall always be, female, while a person born with distinct X and Y chromosomes is forever male. Again, no amount of self-delusion, gnashing of teeth, cross-dressing, genital mutilation surgery, or utterly bizarre presidential doublethink dictates can alter this unalterable fact.

While we would call a person who subjectively insists that water is comprised of pure hydrogen either ignorant or insane, we incongruously call the person who similarly insists that a man can somehow “transition” to a woman, “progressive.”

Even so, it is neither ignorance nor insanity that drives the progressive goal of a creating a “genderless” society. It is something far more sinister.

It is temporal control.

And it is spiritual defiance.

Progressive efforts to “legalize” genderless “marriage” by way of extra-constitutional judicial fiat do not make it legitimate marriage any more than “legalizing” abortion makes it not murder. Likewise, calling a sexually confused man a “trans-woman” makes him no more a woman than cutting the stem off a banana makes it a cantaloupe.

Yet, this “Emperor’s New Clothes” agenda moves ahead at breakneck speed. The necks to be broken, of course, are possessed by those who embrace the biblical sexual ethic and the morality of modesty.

There are multiple layers within progressivism’s pseudo-utopian, truly dystopian philosophy. The left’s lust for redistributionist statism is well-known. Less understood is the progressive rush toward cultural Marxism. With the fast-burgeoning and well-organized push to open girls’ bathrooms and showers to sexually confused men, the menace of cultural Marxism has reached unprecedented levels.

Cultural Marxism entails, among other things, that secularist aspect of left-wing statist ideology that seeks, within society, to supplant traditional values, norms and mores with postmodern moral relativism. It endeavors to destroy innocence, sexualize children, desensitize them to sexual perversion of every stripe and, quite literally, expose as many young girls as possible to adult male genitalia.

Cultural Marxists aim to scrub America of her Judeo-Christian, constitutional-republican founding principles and take, instead, a secular-statist Sharpie to our beloved U.S. Constitution.

Historian and U.S. military affairs expert William S. Lind describes cultural Marxism as:

“a branch of Western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as ‘multiculturalism’ or, less formally, Political Correctness. From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as ‘multiculturalism.’”

Pastor, attorney and former Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Scott Lively is globally admired by liberty-loving traditionalists. Conversely, he’s universally reviled by cultural Marxists. He drills down a bit deeper:

“Cultural Marxism is a variation of the Marxist strategy to build a utopian socialist order on the ashes of Christian civilization, but through subversion of the moral culture, especially the elimination of the natural family, rather than solely through destruction of capitalism.”

True though this may be, the ideological seeds of contemporary cultural Marxism nonetheless sprout from deep within the dead soil of historical communism. It is not economic redistributionism alone through which progressives seek to both “fundamentally transform America” and otherwise conquer the world, but rather, and perhaps primarily, it is through victory over the pejoratively tagged “social issues” (i.e., sin-centric “gay marriage,” “gender identity” and “neutrality,” perverting human sexuality, morality and the natural family structure, child sacrifice via abortion on demand, abolishing religious liberty and so on).

Regrettably, today’s “low-information voters,” as Rush Limbaugh calls them – to include the useful idiots within the GOP’s “moderate” and libertarian wings – are simply too lazy, shortsighted or both to learn the facts. “Surrender on the ‘social issues’!” demands the GOP’s cultural Marxist-enabling kamikazes.

Still, as the American Family Association’s tremendously successful boycott of Target, which has cost that gender-bending company billions of dollars and millions of customers, coupled with the dozen or more states that have rejected Obama’s open bathrooms and showers edict reveals: We Americans who happen to be tethered to scientific and moral reality will never, ever surrender.

In the temporal realm, secular leftists’ chaotic crusade to destroy marriage, the family and create a “Brave New World” of despotic androgyny is a revolt designed to bring down Western civilization – an oppressive patriarchy, as they view it, which stems from the archaic precepts of Judeo-Christian morality.

In the spiritual realm, the gender agenda represents fist-shaking rebellion against the very Creator who, “at the beginning … ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’” (see Matthew 19:4-5).

It remains to be seen how the temporal battle will play out.

The spiritual battle is a foregone conclusion.

If you have school age children, contact your administration as soon as possible to ask this specific question: Will you be permitting students to refuse to speak in class on the Day of Silence? If the administration either answers “Yes” or dodges the question, please call your child or children out of school on the Day of Silence. Every absence costs districts money, and money talks.

Also, if your school will be permitting students to refuse to speak in class, politely insist that an email be sent to every family informing them of the following: 1. The Day of Silence will be taking place in classes on April 17, 2. Students will be permitted to refuse to speak during instructional time, 3.  The Day of Silence is organized and promoted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

Parents have a right to know.

The Day of Silence is the queen of all the numerous homosexuality-affirming activities that take place in public schools. It started in one university and then like a cancer metastasized to thousands of high schools, and then into middle schools. Before long it will take place in elementary schools. Leftists know that it’s easier to indoctrinate 16-year-olds than 36-year-olds and easier still to indoctrinate 6-year-olds.

GLSEN promotes the Day of Silence as an “anti-bullying” effort. If it were solely about eradicating bullying, everyone—liberals and conservatives alike—would support it. But it’s not.

The Day of Silence exploits government schools, captive audiences, and anti-bullying sentiment to advance the Left’s social, moral, and political beliefs and goals. GLSEN seeks to advance the belief that all public expressions of moral disapproval of homosexual activity are bullying.

GLSEN urges students to refuse to speak all day, including during academic classes, which is disruptive to instructional time. Administrators permit students to refuse to speak in class, and teachers feel compelled to create lesson plans to accommodate student-refusal to speak. Teachers feel that if they don’t accommodate student-refusal to speak, they will be seen as supporting the bullying of self-identified homosexual students.

The little unspoken secret is that many teachers on both sides of the political aisle hate the Day of Silence because of the distraction and disruption it creates. Unfortunately, they’re afraid to say that to their administrations because GLSEN and its ideological acolytes proclaim that opposition to the Day of Silence necessarily means endorsement of bullying. The truth is one can both oppose bullying and oppose the Day of Silence.

The homosexuality-affirming legal organizations Lambda Legal and the ACLU have both stated that students have no legal right to refuse to speak in class, so school administrations have every right to require students to participate verbally in class. And teachers have every right to require students to answer questions, give oral presentations or speeches, or participate in debates or discussions.

A coalition of pro-family organizations is once again urging parents to keep their children home from school on the Day of Silence if their school administrations will be allowing students to politicize instructional time by refusing to speak. This is the only organized national effort to oppose any pro-homosexual activity or event in public schools.

Each year through the Day of Silence Walkout, parents of freshmen learn about the Day of Silence. And remarkably, there are parents of sophomores, juniors, and seniors who learn for the first time that the Day of Silence takes place in their children’s schools. This lack of awareness happens because school administrations do not notify parents about the Day of Silence.

The absence of conservative influence within the culture on issues related to homosexuality is to some extent the fault of conservatives. Ignorance, fear, and an astounding lack of perseverance on the parts of conservatives have turned our cultural institutions—including public education—into the playground of “progressives.” Our passivity has enabled homosexual activists and their ideological allies to become social, political, and pedagogical bullies. Evidence of that is everywhere, including in schools on the GLSEN’s annual April school event, the Day of Silence.

We must demonstrate the boldness and perseverance of the Left if we hope to stop the relentless appropriation of public education for the promotion of homosexuality.

Matt Barber, Founder and Editor-in-Chief, BarbWire

Dr. Michael Brown, Director, Coalition of Conscience

Brian Camenker, President, MassResistance

Linda Harvey, Founder and President, Mission America

Laurie Higgins, Cultural Analyst, Illinois Family Institute

Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality

Diane Gramley, President, American Family Association of Pennsylvania

Matt Staver, President, Liberty Counsel

Debra Smith, Founder, Informing Christians

Tom Rasmussen, Executive Director, Montana Family Foundation

Pastor Scott Lively, President, Abiding Truth Ministries

Penny Nance, President, CWA

Debbie Leininger, State Director, CWA of Illinois

Beverly Uhlmer Roberts, State Director, CWA of Texas South

Linda Wall, VA Mass Resistance

Nolan Clayton, Faith and Freedom Family Ministries

Pastor Christopher Clegg, Operation Save America

A new report by the Evangelicals Council for Financial Accountability says that the government’s attempts to regulate the political involvement and speech of 501(c)(3) groups, particularly churches, is ineffective. A combination of factors, such as the vagueness of laws, inconsistent application of the law, and the fact that current IRS code infringes on the free speech rights of both individuals and churches leads many to believe the law needs to change.

Many pastors are familiar with the 1954 Johnson Amendment which attempts to remove the voice of pastors and churches from all things political. This unconstitutional amendment was inserted into the IRS code with the promise that all non-profits groups, especially churches, will lose their tax exempt license for engaging in “political speech.” The question is often asked, “What constitutes political speech?” To which most government officials clear their throat and quickly change the subject.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that the Johnson Amendment is clearly a violation of the constitutional free speech rights of pastor’s and their churches, many have been threatened into silence. The result is an America where pastors, the men once on the forefront of cultural education according to biblical principles, have been replaced by movie stars, rappers, and Planned Parenthood. The effects are obvious.

The report argued: “The IRS will not (and should not) enforce the prohibition in such faith communities en masse.”

Current political climate against speech deemed politically incorrect is more hostile than ever. While the government likes to claim “free speech” for people bashing Christians and the God of Christians, that same government is almost actively pursuing civil rights charges against speech bashing Islam, race, and sexual orientation. The bias against the right of Christians to speak freely according to their faith is undeniable.

Just in case someone wanted to try and deny that Christians are being pursued for speaking according to their faith, consider a recent case involving both America and Africa. An American pastor, Scott Lively, is being sued for “crimes against humanity” by a homosexual rights group in Uganda for speaking out against the homosexual lifestyle while he was in Uganda.

A federal judge has allowed the charges to be brought despite the fact that the United States has rejected the international treaty, Alien Tort Statute, which would provide the only legitimate recourse for the group. The reason this is serious is because if the case continues to go forward it threatens the free speech rights of American citizens under the First Amendment and opens U.S. citizens up to lawsuits from international groups and individuals. A recent article writes:

“…[T]he ruling from Judge Michael Ponser in a case brought by Sexual Minorities Uganda against Pastor Scott Lively of Abiding Truth Ministries could mean much more. It could establish that an international consensus disavowing long-held biblical standards could trump the U.S. Constitution. SMUG alleges Lively must be punished for criticizing homosexuality, calling his speech a ‘crime against humanity’ in violation of ‘international law.’ The plaintiffs allege that the Alien Tort Statute in the United States allows them to make the charge in the U.S. Lively’s attorney, Horatio Mihet of Liberty Counsel, said his client’s preaching is protected by the Constitution.”

Stories like this have the negative effect intended upon many pastors which ultimately causes silence. Fearing retribution from the government, riot’s in their communities, and other unintended consequences many pastors are simply choosing to keep silent on “controversial issues” like homosexuality and abortion. The problem of course is that this goes against the example of Jesus. Jesus showed grace to every person He encountered, but He also showed truth and refused to back down from it.

The bottom line is that pastors and churches need to be more involved in preaching and teaching on these issues. Surely we can’t sit back and let Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson speak for us pretending to speak for the “evangelical” majority. We have truth on our side and need to share it often with a culture that desperately needs truth and grace. A church with the right statements in its Constitution and By-Laws can be legally protected from abusive lawsuits. Documents such as “7 Things Every Church Should Have in Their Constitution and By-Laws,” developed by Alliance Defending Freedom are excellent defenses against legal attacks.

I suppose we could all “quit America” and seek an island in the middle of the ocean for refuge. At least one family tired of government over-reach decided to do just that. And while it sounds nice, it doesn’t help our neighbors or communities when Christians armed with truth cut and run.

Jesus told us that in the last days these “perilous times” would come. It’s not a surprise. How we handle these times is of utmost importance and must be decided before we are faced with trying circumstances. Stand strong. Speak boldly. Offer truth and grace.

This article first appeared at the Engage Family Minute blog. You can see the original article HERE.  

Pro-homosexual vandals recently attacked an Illinois Christian academy where Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) was holding a banquet to honor an evangelical Christian leader.

Anonymous activists have taken credit for throwing concrete bricks through windows and doors at Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights to protest the banquet for the “homophobic hate group” and guest speaker Scott Lively, co-author of The Pink Swastika and founder of Watchmen on the Walls.

“I’m not surprised that they did this,” admits Liberty Counsel Action vice president Matt Barber. “This really amounts to an act of terrorism in that they threatened more violence if Dr. Lively and his speech went forward and if the Christian Liberty Academy did not disassociate from Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.”

But in the face of all opposition, AFTAH has remained steadfast in exposing the homosexual agenda throughout the country. Barber contends the attack should trigger an investigation on the basis of hate crimes laws. He also points out that homosexuals who demand tolerance are not willing to repay the favor to opponents as they try to shut down the Christian message about their lifestyle.

“We are going to speak God’s truth in love without fear of reprisal, or even in this case, without fear of violence,” the attorney assures. “So I have a message to the gay terrorists that perpetrated this crime: Your terrorist tactics have failed, and you will not succeed in silencing God’s truth.”

Meanwhile, the Christian Liberty Academy vandals stand by their actions and claim they threw concrete through the windows and doors to “show that there is a consequence for hatred and homophobia” in the community and to directly cause the October 15 event to be shut down. And since the event was not called off, the academy has been warned that it “will continue to be under constant attack.”

Even so, the incident is not being treated as a hate crime because Lively was apparently targeted for his views, not for any characteristic cited in the Illinois hate crime law, such as race, color, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.