1

Leftist Hive Mind Is Banning Ideas

Democrats have long pretended to be the party that fights to protect the little guy, all the while privately cozying up with Big Business, Big Tech, and Big Brother’s Press to oppress the little guys and gals.

Democrat policies decimated the black family and our big cities. Democrats wasted millions of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars and countless work hours on Russian collusion disinformation and impeachment ruses. And then in de facto collusion with social media mega-millionaires and the corrupt leftist press, the “progressive” Hive threw the election to befuddled Biden and his henchwoman.

But the worker bees shaped by the “progressive” Hive mind are not done yet.

In their official congressional roles, Representatives Anna G. Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, two hubristic California Democrats, sent jaw-dropping letters on February 22, 2021 to the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Hulu, Roku, Charter Communications (Spectrum), Dish Network, Cox Communications, and Altice USA to pressure them to stop carrying Newsmax, One America News Network (OANN), and Fox News.

In other words, tolerant, diversity-loving, free speech-devoted leftists seek to ban every outlet and platform for the dissemination of ideas they hate.

Here are the jaw-dropping questions, Eshoo and McNerney are “asking” every company to answer:

1. What moral or ethical principles (including those related to journalistic integrity, violence, medical information, and public health) do you apply in deciding which channels to carry or when to take adverse actions against a channel?

2. Do you require, through contracts or otherwise, that the channels you carry abide by any content guidelines? If so, please provide a copy of the guidelines.

3. How many of your subscribers viewed Fox News on YouTube TV for each of the four weeks preceding the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol? Please specify the number of subscribers that tuned in to each channel.

4. What steps did you take prior to, on, and following the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks to monitor, respond to, and reduce the spread of disinformation, including encouragement or incitement of violence by channels your company disseminates to millions of Americans? Please describe each step that you took and when it was taken.

5. Have you taken any adverse actions against a channel, including Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN, for using your platform to disseminate disinformation related directly or indirectly to the November 3, 2020 elections, the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection, or COVID-19 misinformation? If yes, please describe each action, when it was taken, and the parties involved.

6. Have you ever taken any actions against a channel for using your platform to disseminate any disinformation? If yes, please describe each action and when it was taken.

7. Are you planning to continue carrying Fox News on YouTube TV both now and beyond any contract renewal date? Are you planning to continue carrying Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN … both now and beyond any contract renewal date? If so, why?

Without a hint of irony, Eshoo and McNerney, card-carrying members of the Ministry of Truthiness, call conservative news sites sources of “disinformation.” No word about the misinformation and disinformation promulgated by Democrats in Congress and their propagandist minions in the press.

In this brave new dystopia being created by leftists, they have arrogated to themselves the “right” to decide what constitutes “misinformation” and “disinformation.” They have arrogated to themselves the “right” to decide what information, ideas, and beliefs make people “safe.” They have arrogated to themselves the “right” to define “safety.”

And, amazingly, from the crowd that rebukes “judgmentalism” and the notion of objective truth, leftists have arrogated to themselves the right to judge beliefs and then declare for the entire country which ones are true.

Once having declared which moral, ontological, and epistemological beliefs are true for all of America, the bees with their collective Hive mind buzzing, busy themselves with their stinging banning-business. And boy, does it hurt. I mean, girl sexually indeterminate human, does it hurt.

On no issue are the worker bees busier with their banning than on the “trans” issue. And since the minds of Big Business have been melded into the Hive mind, genuine “trans”-truth-tellers–i.e., people who tell the truth about “trans”-cultism–are being censored.

The work of two well-known “trans”- truth-tellers sparked controversial decisions among woke corporate behemoths recently. Those corporate decisions illuminate the dark cultural period the “trans” cult has ushered in, aided and abetted by the cowardice of those who know truth and the ignorance of those who should.

A few months ago, Target stopped selling an important book by Wall Street Journal reporter Abigail Shrier titled Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.

The well-researched and positively reviewed book offers a damning critique of “trans”-cultic beliefs, specifically how the “offensive” and “insipid” redefinition of “female” by the “trans” cult is damaging adolescent girls.

Target’s de facto book-banning resulted in fierce blowback, which caused Target to reverse its decision within days.

Fast-forward to Feb. 2021 when the news broke that Amazon had quietly stopped selling another important book critical of “trans”-cultism, this one by Ryan T. Anderson and titled When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment, which Amazon had been selling for three years.

Anderson, founding editor of Public Discourse and president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is a political philosopher with degrees from Princeton and Notre Dame. Like Schrier, he is also faultlessly civil and winsome. No forewarning to Anderson and no justification from Amazon representatives when queried about Amazon’s book ban.

Amazon has some peculiar and opaque standards for determining which books won’t be sold on its platform. Customers can buy Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kampf, all sorts of homosexual porn, and the book Let Harry Become Sally: Responding to the Anti-Transgender Moment.

Within days of Amazon’s de facto book-banning, Target decided the time was ripe to once again remove Schrier’s book from their rainbow-hued shelves. The sanctimonious, judgmental Target execs refuse to profit from a critique of the “trans” cult that is profiting so handsomely from the confusion, sterilization, and mutilation of children and teens. No siree, those Target execs have standards to uphold—standards that look like a canary-yellow stripe running down their spineless backs. After all, men in dresses can be very scary.

In a December 2020 article titled “Leftists See Orwell’s Novel 1984 As a Blueprint for Progress,” I wrote this:

One of the many remarkable aspects of this time in America is that all the forces of oppression about which George Orwell warned in his novel 1984 are present and growing, and many of the oppressors can’t see it. Ironically, many of the oppressors view themselves as paragons of virtue when, in reality, they’re paragons of virtue-signaling, which constitutes a performative cloak of invisibility that conceals their totalitarianism.

Apparently, leftists read both 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 as blueprints for “progress.”

Some doctrinaire libertarians argue that private businesses should be absolutely free to make any business decision they choose, including choosing to ban tweets, posts, social media platforms, news programs, or books. But such thinking is flawed in an age when the public square is the Internet and gargantuan communication and sales monopolies are controlled by the Hive.

If conservatives cannot disseminate ideas and cannot earn a living if they express ideas the Hive hates, then our first freedoms to speak and exercise our religion freely do not, in reality, exist.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/audioLeftist-Hive-Mind-Banning-Ideas.mp3


If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  It makes a difference!




Avoid Target for Back to School Shopping

As back-to-school shopping season nears, I’m asking your family to avoid shopping at Target stores… and to warn your friends about the danger Target presents to women and children.

Together we are making an unprecedented financial impact on a corporation whose policy is to allow men to use women’s restrooms and dressing rooms. Target’s decision is unacceptable for families, and their dangerous and misguided policy continues to put women and children in harm’s way.

We must keep the pressure on Target by avoiding their stores during back-to-school shopping. Let’s educate Target to the fact that their bathroom policy earns them a failing grade. 

Target is dependent on a large back-to-school sales season. By spending your money with their competitors, you are sending a strong message to Target that their policy is bad for business.

1.) If you haven’t already, sign the #BoycottTarget pledge. Invite your family and friends to sign the pledge too.

2.) Forward this information to friends and family. Invite them to sign the boycott pledge at www.afa.net/target.

3.) Call Target headquarters at 612-304-6073 and personally let them know you are boycotting their stores.

4.) Visit www.afa.net/target for more tools and information on the Boycott Target pledge.


This article originally posted at AFA.net.




Google and Target Among Corporations Backing LGBT ‘Civil Rights’ Bill

A hundred major corporations, ranging from Target to American Airlines to Best Buy, have signed on to an LGBTQ activist coalition supporting the “Equality Act,” which would federalize homosexuality and transgenderism as “civil rights” categories in the law.

The homosexual-bisexual-transgender lobby group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) says the bill, HR 2282, is about “letting Americans live their lives without fear of discrimination,” but pro-family organizations counter that the “Inequality Act” (as Family Research Council calls it) would expressly undermine people’s religious freedom to act against homosexuality and extreme gender confusion (transgenderism), e.g., by declining to participate in same-sex “marriages.”

The sweeping legislation, introduced by openly homosexual U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, D-Rhode Island, has 194 Democratic co-sponsors and two Republican co-sponsors. With little action on the bill likely in a GOP-dominated Congress, HRC is taking its campaign for HR 2282 to the corporate world, where its institutional influence and power greatly exceeds that of social conservatives.

HR 2282, as described by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation.”

The bill prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from “discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity, subject to the same exceptions and conditions that currently apply to unlawful employment practices based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to CRS.

The bill’s far-reaching impact would greatly expand the potential for lawsuits against private individuals who choose not to affirm behaviors they regard as immoral before God. Already, using state and local “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws, LGBTQ activists and their allies have made life difficult for people opposing “gay marriage” and “proud” homosexuality and transsexualism — from wedding cake makers and wedding photographers to t-shirt makers and even bar owners.

The CRS summary of HR 2282 states:

“The bill expands the categories of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide:

— exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays;

— goods, services, or programs, including a store, a shopping center, an online retailer or service provider, a salon, a bank, a gas station, a food bank, a service or care center, a shelter, a travel agency, a funeral parlor, or a health care, accounting, or legal service; or

— transportation services.”

Noting the expanded definition of “public accommodation” under the proposed legislation, FRC states: “Thus, if the Inequality Act passes, attorneys will likely be required to represent homosexuals in dissolving their same-sex ‘marriages,’ Christian schools will likely be required to offer transgendered students the bathroom of their choice, and Christian homeless shelters will likely be required to accommodate same-sex couples.”

According to the CRS, HR 2282 defines “gender identity” as “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.” The bill states that the Department of Justice (DOJ) “may bring a civil action if it receives a complaint from an individual” who claims to be “denied equal utilization of a public facility … (other than public schools or colleges) on account of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

Thus, under HR 2282, a “male-to-female” “transgender” activist could sue an amusement park if it refused to let him, as a biological male, enter the public women’s restrooms (since amusement parks would be covered under the Act as “public accommodations”).

HRC quotes Dow Chemical employee Cory Valente in defense of the “Equality Act”: “No one should be fired, evicted from their home, or denied services because of who they are. Supporting inclusion and equality is the right thing to do – for business and for society.”

But FRC states that by expressly stripping away the protections of federal “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”–designed to protect citizens’ conscience rights–the pro-LGBTQ “Inequality Act” “would force people to affirm homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and transgenderism, despite their religious objections in various situations, including the provision of public accommodations.”

“This is the antithesis of religious freedom,” the pro-family group asserts.

HRC’s rigged rating system pressures corporations

HRC has employed to great effect its skewed “Corporate Equality Index” “scorecard” system to pressure corporations to ratchet up their pro-homosexual and pro-“transgender” policies. Under the ratings system, companies get points for giving money to pro-LGBTQ activities but they potentially lose 25 points if they do anything that HRC considers to be a “large-scale official or public anti-LGBT blemish” (see page 8 here).

Thus, even neutral corporate giving policies — say, if a company’s executives wanted to avoid taking sides by financially supporting both pro-LGBT groups and organizations like the American Family Association — would be boxed out for any corporation seeking a perfect HRC “Equality Index” score.

And under the HRC’s self-serving “Index,” companies must comply with an ever-expanding list of pro-LGBTQ demands to continue receiving a “100 percent” ranking.

The strategy has been immensely successful for HRC, with even once-conservative corporations like Walmart joining its “100 percent” club — which includes paying for “transgender” employees “sex-reassignment surgeries” through company health insurance plans. Walmart now finances “gay pride” events like the annual New York City “pride parade.”

HRC reports the following 100 major corporations as members of its “Coalition for the Equality Act”:

Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

Accenture

Adobe Systems Inc.

Advanced Micro Devices Inc.

Airbnb Inc.

Alcoa Inc.

Amazon.com Inc.

American Airlines

American Eagle Outfitters

American Express Global Business Travel

Apple Inc.

Arconic

Ascena Retail Group Inc.

Automatic Data Processing Inc.

Bain & Co. Inc.

Bank of America

Best Buy Co. Inc.

Biogen

Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corp.

Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.

Boston Scientific Corp.

Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc.

Brown-Forman Corp.

CA Technologies Inc.

Caesars Entertainment Corp.

Capital One Financial Corp.

Cardinal Health Inc.

Cargill Inc.

Chevron Corp.

Choice Hotels International Inc.

Cisco Systems Inc.;

The Coca-Cola Co.

Corning Inc.

Cox Enterprises Inc.

CVS Health Corp.

Darden Restaurants Inc.

Delhaize America Inc.

Diageo North America

The Dow Chemical Co.

Dropbox Inc.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. (DuPont)

eBay Inc.

EMC Corp.

Facebook Inc.

Gap Inc.

General Electric Co.

General Mills Inc.

Google Inc.

HERE North America LLC

The Hershey Company

Hewlett Packard Enterprises

Hilton Inc.

HP Inc.; HSN Inc.

Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP

Hyatt Hotels Corp.

IBM Corp.

Intel Corp.

InterContinental Hotels Group Americas

Johnson & Johnson

JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Kaiser Permanente; Kellogg Co.

Kenneth Cole Productions

Levi Strauss & Co.; Macy’s Inc.

Marriott International Inc.

MasterCard Inc.; Microsoft Corp.

Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams

Monsanto Co.

Moody’s Corp.

Nationwide

Navigant Consulting Inc.

Nike Inc.

Northrop Grumman Corp.

Office Depot Inc.

Oracle Corp.

Orbitz Worldwide Inc.

Paul Hastings LLP

PepsiCo Inc.

Procter & Gamble Co.

Pure Storage Inc.

Qualcomm Inc.

Replacements Ltd.

S&P Global Inc.

Salesforce

SAP America Inc.

Sodexo Inc.

Symantec Corp.

Synchrony Financial

T-Mobile USA Inc.

Target Corp.

Tech Data Corp.

TIAA

Twitter Inc.

Uber Technologies Inc

Under Armour Inc

Unilever

Warby Parker

WeddingWire Inc.

Whirlpool Corporation

Williams-Sonoma Inc.

Xerox Corp.


This article was originally published at LifeSiteNews.com




On Target

Written by Chris Freund

In case you haven’t heard, apparently, despite nearly a year’s worth of scoffing denials by the retailer’s officials, Target isn’t doing so well.

Paint me shocked!

Plummeting sales and stock can be blamed on the weather only so many times before any thinking person starts to suspect that perhaps there’s more here than we’re being told.

Now comes a story in the Wall Street Journal where sources with Target claim that the announcement about a policy allowing men in women’s restrooms in the name of tolerance was never actually approved by the boss.  It was just a blog post that got a little out of hand.  And, oh, the CEO now claims he wouldn’t have approved the announcement because he thought, well, just maybe, there might be a backlash.

Ya think?

Of course, the CEO and others, along with the media and even many market “experts” claimed for the past year that there has been no backlash and that Target’s plummeting sales and stocks are due to the weather or other unusual market forces.  Weather and market forces that weren’t, however, having any effect on Target’s biggest competitor, Walmart.  Odd.

And that $20 million plan to add private restrooms to stores had nothing at all to do with the backlash that wasn’t really happening.  Just move along…

Now, I’m not a big fan of “boycotts” in general, and measuring their impact is pretty near impossible.  But you have to admit that when 1.5 million people say they aren’t going to shop someplace anymore, it might have a bit of an impact.  And that doesn’t include those who may have decided to not shop there but never signed any petition or pledge.  Regardless, the fact that the retailer’s sales have dropped in every quarter since the announcement can’t be simple coincidence.  Apparently, now, a year later, officials are starting to admit it.

Target’s biggest worry?  Those who figured out they never needed Target in the first place, and discovered online shopping at Amazon.  Not sure there’s a blog post correction that can fix that.


This article was originally posted at The Family Foundation blog.




Boycotting Target – Why We Shouldn’t Stop and What You Can Do

The world knows what Target ushered in on April 19th 2016 – from that politically motivated announcement that pronounced to all men everywhere – come use the bathroom with our daughters and wives millions of people made the decision to boycott Target.  My family is one of them.

Now more than ever, it is important to continue to boycott Target. This is not a short term decision but a long term commitment — at least until Target reverses it’s policy. Where ever you live there are great alternatives; places where the executive team does not feel the need to aggressively enter the political landscape and undermine basic moral principles.

Let’s be clear; individuals that truly identify as transgender have been using the bathroom of their choice – this is not a debate about individuals that are confused about their male or female identity. It is about undermining both the physical and spiritual unique differences and qualities of males and females as given by God and about keeping those you love safe.

Here is what we all still need to do:

  1. Continue to choose an alternate place to shop.
  2. Comment on and share articles like this one with your family, friends, and social media circles.
  3. Sign up on various petitions boycotting Target, such as the American Family Association’s (currently with over 1.4 million pledges to shop elsewhere).
  4. Organize a peaceful event at a local Target like the one I am mentioning below.

Here is the very real and for anyone with women in your lives that you care about, frightening, reality of the implications of what Target did. I chose a Target near me; 601 S. County Farm Rd. Wheaton, IL 60187. I then searched both the state and federal online registered sex offenders data base (I am including links below for you to do a similar search near your Target).

I found a staggering 97 registered sex offenders within a 10-mile radius of this Target. Keep in mind, this is only registered sex offenders, meaning people who have been caught. Likely, there are hundreds more within that 10-mile radius.

These 97 individuals have now been given a invocation from Target Corporation to enter the women’s bathrooms or fitting rooms and dis-robe, expose themselves, watch, comment, and fulfill their deviant sexual predator desires, including video recording. This will lead to my and your daughters, wives, and female family and friends being sexually exploited, harassed, and even, potentially, raped.

Take a look at the map below and know that each circle represents a registered sexual predator that now has been given free access by Target to your wives and children’s fitting rooms and bathrooms.

97 Registered sex offenders with 10 miles of the Wheaton IL Target

97 Registered sex offenders with 10 miles of the Wheaton Illinois Target

It is because of this that I and my family participated in a “Target Education Day” in front of the very Target that currently has 97 registered sex offenders within an easily accessible range in Wheaton, IL on Saturday, September 24, 2016. It was a wonderful event, we, along with the organizers of this event and fellow participants, handed out 750 flyers informing people of Target’s decision and what it means.

Of the more than 30 people that I talked with, all but a few had no idea that Target and it’s executive team want men to have the “right” to be able to use the bathroom with your wife and children in their stores.  It is because of this low understanding that I ask you to share this with your friends, family and co-workers.

I encourage you to participate or host your own event and continue to send your shopping dollars elsewhere. It does have an affect. Especially, if you don’t quit. Target Corporation is hoping that we let this go – I hope you will join me in never letting it go. Our ultimate goal is to simply have the policy reversed and keep our loved ones safe.

Here is the link to the US Department of Justice https://www.nsopw.gov/. NSOPW stands for National Sex Offender Public Website

In Illinois here is the link for the Illinois Sex Offender Search: https://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/




Target Is Being Deceptive

Last week, Target announced a $20 million public relations diversionary tactic to make you believe the company has changed its bathroom policy.

Don’t fall for it. Target has not changed its policy.

While it is true the company is adding single-stall, lockable bathrooms to all store locations, Target says it will continue to allow men to use the women’s restrooms and fitting rooms inside their stores.

Adding more bathrooms isn’t the solution. Not allowing men in women’s facilities is the solution.

Please take a minute to read my open letter response to Target CEO Brian Cornell concerning his company’s refusal to address the real problem.

Let Target know you are not fooled by its misleading language by doing three things:

  1. Most effective: Make a personal comment on Target’s Facebook page here.
  2. If you haven’t already, sign the boycott pledge here.
  3. New!!Read the latest news on the Target boycott from FoxNews’ Todd Starnes here.

If our mission resonates with you, please consider supporting our work financially with a tax-deductible donation. The easiest way to do that is through online giving. It is easy to use, and most of all, it is secure.




Target and the Transgender Video Voyeur

When Target announced its transgender-friendly restroom and fitting room policy in April, the American Family Association (AFA) almost immediately called for a boycott. (You can sign the petition here.) What alarmed us in particular was Target’s eagerness to allow grown men into dressing rooms that historically had been reserved for the exclusive use of the fairer sex.

While Target emphasized that its policy was just about transgenders, we immediately saw citizen videos in which grown men who were making no pretense to be women asked Target personnel if they were free to use whatever restroom or dressing room they chose, and they were enthusiastically told that of course they could.

This represented – and still does today since Target has not changed course – a dangerous loophole. Target is allowing any male to use a women’s dressing room if he simply self-identifies as a female, and even if he doesn’t. He is not required to show any evidence of his femaleness, whether with a driver’s license, a note from his doctor, or even his attire. His word is his bond. If he says he’s a woman trapped in a man’s body, Target will simply take his word for it, regardless of how obviously ridiculous the claim may be.

This is exceedingly irresponsible, as it exposes our wives, daughters, and granddaughters to invasion of privacy at a minimum and to sexual assault at the worst. Video voyeurism, we predicted, would increase, for the simple reason that any man can go into any dressing room or restroom he wishes without being challenged or even questioned by Target employees. Once he’s in, he’s in, and if he does something indecent while he’s in there, too bad. Thanks to Target, it’ll be too late for the victim. He might even wind up getting arrested, but the damage will have already been done.

At the time, we were told ad nauseam that we had nothing to fear from those who claim to be transgendered because no transgenders had ever abused their privileged access to little girls’ rooms. Well, that ruse has now been blown to bits.

Here is a case in point, which perfectly illustrates why the Target boycott must continue until Target management gets its collective mind right. In my home state of Idaho, police arrested a 46-year-old man who claims to be a transgender woman. His crime? Filming an 18-year girl as she tried on swimwear in a Target dressing room. His legal name is Sean Smith, even though he claims to be going by the name Shauna Smith. He used an iPhone to film the victim from an adjacent booth, simply by sticking the phone over the top of the divider.

Smith was attired in a dress and a blonde wig, either as an expression of his own sexual confusion or as a clumsy disguise to avert suspicion. But his mugshot makes it clear that he’s a male regardless of what he thinks he is.

During questioning by Bonneville County detectives, Smith admitted that he has done this thing repeatedly in the past. One investigator wrote, “[Smith] eventually admitted to me that she [sic] had made videos in the past of women undressing. The defendant told (the detective) that she [sic] makes these videos for the ‘same reason men go online to look at pornography.’”

We’re not told why he picked a Target store, but unchallenged and unquestioned access to intimate settings would have made it irresistibly tempting. Misguided corporate leadership has turned Target into a virtual chain of do-it-yourself porn sets and peep shows for would-be video voyeurs and pedophiles.

Target will soon be releasing its second quarter financial statement, and the news will not be good. Shareholders have every reason to be restive about management risking their investment on a doomed-to-fail social experiment.

Perhaps shareholders can get the attention of Target’s CEO, since, at this point, he seems impervious to the voices of alarmed American families who are taking their shopping dollars to friendlier climes.

Bottom line: Target either needs to get a new dressing room policy or a new CEO. And the sooner the better.


This article was originally posted at AFA’s blog.




CUNY Math Professor Donates Sperm in Target Bathrooms

*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.



SM_balloonsFollow 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




Target Paints a Bull’s-Eye on Women

Written by Anita Staver

The purpose of a public restroom is not to make a political statement. Sex-specific facilities were designed for male and female biological differences. Safety concerns are not bigotry.

Target recently highlighted its “inclusive” policy in an announcement, opening the door for any man, regardless of appearance, to stalk women and girls. Target’s policy will invite sexual predators to its stores, exposing women and girls to men peeking through cracks, over and under doors, or waiting for their next victim. Statistical data is not necessary.

I was traveling when the controversy heated up. Using Twitter to warn others, I retweeted an article about a boycott of Target that has ensued following the new policy. Next, I read about a 29-year-old Canadian high school basketball player, and tweeted: “Perhaps he identifies as a teen.”

Fresh from self-defense training with a rented Glock .45, en route to a Wal-Mart in gun-friendly Oklahoma, I constructed another satirical tweet: “I’m taking a Glock .45 to the ladies room. It identifies as my bodyguard.”

I added #BoycottTarget” as the trending topic. Tagging @Target on the end, I intended to draw the company’s attention to women’s safety, not to imply that I would go there. If I intended to visit Target I would have said, “I’m taking a Glock .45 to the @Target ladies room,” instead of adding @Target afterwards.

Our Facebook pages and Twitter feeds filled. Within a few days, the bodyguard tweet gained national media attention, combative commentary and an interview with Alan Colmes of Fox News.

More people agreed than not. One woman messaged me: “With how ‘social media brave’ people are lately, I admire that you keep your cool, continue to be a classy adult and don’t stoop to their level.”

Others — mostly radical leftists, sex addicts and porn-crazed perverts with vulgar profiles — painted me as a vigilante who would barge into a Target with an “assault rifle,” murder a transgendered person and terrify small children. Read my tweet. I never said I was going to Target, with or without a gun. Of course, a “bodyguard” is strictly for defense. Peace through strength.

If physically attacked, I would do as I was taught in self-defense class, and only take the action necessary to stop the aggression. Nothing in my tweet shows a violent intent, notwithstanding frequent and vigorous attempts to twist my words. But truth is irrelevant to “tweet-shamers,” Facebook trolls, smut bloggers and the complicit media.

When I share my concern about sexual predators, the bullies added snarky comments and victim-blaming rape stereotypes such as, “You don’t have to worry, honey no one would touch you!”

I will not be intimidated into silence. This issue is personal.

As a teen, I was the victim of two attempted sexual assaults by strangers in public places, but I managed to escape. In my 20s, a revolver became my constant bodyguard.

Instead of panicking over the prospect of a well-armed woman, the naysayers should be up in arms about sexual assault. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that nearly 20 percent of women in the United States have been victims of actual or attempted sexual assault. And those were just the women who admit to the attacks. I predict that number will increase when sexual predators realize they have easy access to potential victims.

Target’s policies and similar laws passed by misguided government leaders endanger lives. A quick online search for “sexual assault Target store” will bring numerous accounts of crimes already happening inside the stores. It is common sense that publicity about the company’s lax policy invites additional attackers. You may open your window for fresh air, but you wouldn’t broadcast it to potential burglars.

Special rules and laws favoring those who “identify” as the opposite sex can lead to outrageous incidents. In 2012, a middle-aged man born Clay Scott Francis, who called himself “Colleen,” insisted on using the women’s locker room at Evergreen State College in Washington. He was taking estrogen but did not undergo surgery and was attracted to women.

Mr. Francis exposed himself to girls on a school swim team who practiced at the college. Their request for privacy was rejected by the administration and the girls were forced to squeeze into smaller locker room to avoid a naked man.

There are numerous other reports of men who disguised themselves and victimized women. For the safety of women, a biological male should use the men’s bathroom due to physical differences. That is the solution that will keep some women from becoming victims. It is not unreasonable discrimination.

Company policymakers and government lawmakers must not paint a bullseye on women when we are already vulnerable to sexual predators in public places. Women just want to be safe.

Anita L. Staver is president of Liberty Counsel. Article originally published at WashingtonTimes.com.




IFI Joins AFA Calling for a Boycott of Target Stores

Illinois Family Institute joins our long time friends and national affiliate at the American Family Association calling for a boycott of Target. The boycott was called for after the retail giant said it would allow men to use the women’s restrooms and dressing rooms in their stores.

On its web Target announced “[W]e welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity. …Everyone deserves to feel like they belong.”

This means a man can simply say he “feels like a woman today” and enter the women’s restroom…even if young girls or women are already in there. Target’s policy is exactly how sexual predators and voyeurs get access to their victims. Moreover, with Target publicly boasting that men can enter women’s bathrooms, where do you think predators and voyeurs are going to go?

On May 11, 2016, officials from AFA met with Target management and presented to them 1.2 million petition signatures. Target management said they will not change their policy. We urge you to sign the AFA pledge and join over a million people who have decided to BOYCOTT all Target stores.

CLICK HERE to sign the boycott pledge today!

 




7 Troubling Questions About Transgender Theories

Written by Trevin Wax

In case you’re just tuning in, Bruce Springsteen, Target, and bathrooms are at the center of controversy these days, as Americans learn more about the T in the LGBT acronym – Transgender.

Broadly speaking, transgender refers to people who believe their gender identity does not correspond to their biological sex. The psychological description, which applies to a narrower slice of those who identify as transgender (and some who do not so identify), is “gender dysphoria,” defined by Mark Yarhouse as “a deep and abiding discomfort over the incongruence between one’s biological sex and one’s psychological and emotional experience of gender.”

With Caitlyn Jenner’s appearance on the cover of Vanity Fair last year, and books and shows like Transparent finding an audience, there is a societal push to celebrate transgender experience as an expression of human diversity or as the next stage in extending human rights.

But this push has run into pushback. Access to bathrooms and locker rooms may be the battleground, but the bigger debate concerns the nature of humanity and, by extension, the best way to approach (or treat) gender dysphoria.

These newfound controversies are complicated, at least in part because of transgender theory itself. The unmooring of “gender identity” from “biological sex” leads to a number of unresolved questions, as well as troubling inconsistencies among advocates of transgender rights. (I realize that not every transgender person or LGBTQ activist agrees on every point or holds to the same ideology. Still, there is broad agreement on a number of important issues.)

In my reading of articles and books about gender identity in the past year, I’ve come across seven issues that challenge the coherence of transgender theories.

1. Do transgender theories undercut or contradict the idea that sexual orientation is unchangeable?

The LGBT’s success in pushing for civil rights legislation on the basis of sexual orientation has relied heavily on the assumption that sexual orientation is “fixed,” or genetically determined. But more and more scholars today argue that sexual orientation is “fluid,” not fixed (especially in females). And these two perspectives are colliding in real life situations involving transgender persons.

Last year, New York magazine’s article “My Husband is Now My Wife” by Alex Morris featured the stories of several spouses of transgender persons who transitioned later in life. Morris describes the women who witnessed their husbands’ transition as feeling pressured to not voice any disapproval, to avoid the accusation of being “transphobic.” They were expected to be “celebratory” and helpful,” no matter how their spouse’s transition would affect the rest of the family.

LGBT theory rests on the assumption that sexual orientation is determined by biology and that it is misguided, even hateful, to seek to change one’s orientation. But, as Morris points out, the spouse of a transgender person is expected to remain and support a partner during and after their transition. And for a wife to celebrate her husband’s transition means she must face questions about her own sexual orientation.

The article quotes from a woman perplexed about what it means for her, a heterosexual woman, to suddenly be the spouse of a woman. She says, “I don’t know how comfortable I would feel in a group of lesbians…Because here I am doing the very thing that they’re trying to prove is not possible” — change the gender to which she is attracted. Such an expectation destabilizes some of the foundational elements of LGBT theory on homosexuality.

2. If gender identity is fixed and unchangeable, why do many children who experience gender dysphoria lose these feelings after puberty?

The next wave of societal controversy is likely to involve one’s approach to children. Studies show that a significant number of people who experience varying degrees of gender dysphoria as children choose to identify with their biological sex after puberty.

New Jersey currently forbids any change or direction given to a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. A similar bill in Canada assumes that sexual orientation and gender identity are the same – determined at birth.

But, as Alice Dreger in Wired points out, “by ‘affirming’ a ‘transgender’ identity as soon as it appears—the clinician might actually be stimulating and cementing a transgender identity… Maybe the child who is ‘affirmed’ will be just as well off with a transgender identity as she would have been without, but the fact is that being transgender generally comes with non-trivial medical interventions, including hormonal and surgical.”

3. When a person feels a disjunction between one’s sex at birth and one’s gender identity, why is the only course of action to bring the body into closer conformity with the person’s psychological state, rather than vice versa?

If the disjunction a transgender person feels between their gender and their body is psychological, why should we recommend invasive surgical procedures to make the body more closely match the mind instead of seeking treatment that might help move the mind closer to the sex they were assigned at birth?

In other words, why do many transgender advocates claim that the only loving response to a transgender person is to support their desire for a surgical procedure? The most extensive studies of people who have undergone sex-reassignment surgeries (in Sweden, over a period of thirty years, in a culture that celebrates transgender persons) delivered disturbing results, including a much higher suicide rate.

Furthermore, how do these surgeries fit into the broader medical tradition in which the purpose of treatment is (usually) to restore bodily functions and faculties that are ordered toward certain ends? Why is it acceptable to oppose a “transabled” person’s desire to undergo surgery that would blind them, or leave them without a limb, but it is “hateful” and “transphobic” to oppose surgeries that damage body parts that are in no way dysfunctional?

4. Is the higher rate of suicide among transgender persons due primarily to the inner tensions of experiencing gender dysphoria as a disorder, or are these acts motivated primarily by societal rejection?

In the past six months, I have noticed the same trend among many transgender advocates: that questioning a course of treatment or wondering out loud about the significance or meaning of gender in a way that dissents from transgender theory is responsible for transgender suicides. According to this way of thinking, gender binaries are inherently oppressive and damaging to the mental health of transgender persons.

I recall reading a columnist last year who was sympathetic to transgender concerns and who asked for patience on the part of transgender activists as he and others learned how to adopt the new linguistic guidelines and avoid causing unnecessary offense. A transgender woman fired off a response claiming that such a request is impossible because people are killing themselves due to these kinds of verbal mistakes.

It is difficult to make the case that transgender persons exhibit no signs of mental disorder while at the same time saying that the wrong pronoun can lead a person to suicide.

5. Why are the strongest critics of “gender binaries” the most likely to support gender stereotypes on display in transgender celebrities?

Feminist writer Elinor Burkett explained in the New York Times last year her surprise at seeing our society’s idea of womanhood return to the stereotypes she had long fought against.

“Suddenly, I find that many of the people I think of as being on my side — people who proudly call themselves progressive and fervently support the human need for self-determination — are buying into the notion that minor differences in male and female brains lead to major forks in the road and that some sort of gendered destiny is encoded in us.”

I have seen LGBT activists decry the notion that one can, by visual representation only, determine the gender of a person, and at the same time question the legitimacy of someone’s claim to being transgender based on the visual perception (or lack thereof) of their desire to transition.

Why do those who demand empathy and acceptance toward the transgender experience dismiss feminist critics who believe the movement fails to properly understand the female experience? 

Burkett goes on to write:

“People who haven’t lived their whole lives as women, whether Ms. Jenner or Mr. Summers, shouldn’t get to define us. That’s something men have been doing for much too long… Their truth is not my truth. Their female identities are not my female identity. They haven’t traveled through the world as women and been shaped by all that this entails. For me and many women, feminist and otherwise, one of the difficult parts of witnessing and wanting to rally behind the movement for transgender rights is the language that a growing number of trans individuals insist on, the notions of femininity that they’re articulating, and their disregard for the fact that being a woman means having accrued certain experiences, endured certain indignities and relished certain courtesies in a culture that reacted to you as one. The ‘I was born in the wrong body’ rhetoric favored by other trans people doesn’t work any better and is just as offensive, reducing us to our collective breasts and vaginas.”

6. Why must one’s declared gender identity be accepted without question, while other forms of self-identification can be dismissed?

In making her point about women embracing men who transition, Burkett writes:

“Imagine the reaction if a young white man suddenly declared that he was trapped in the wrong body and, after using chemicals to change his skin pigmentation and crocheting his hair into twists, expected to be embraced by the black community.”

Something similar took place last year with Rachel Dolezal, the former president of a chapter of the NAACP. One columnist described Dolezal’s claim as “perverse and pathological,” a version of “identity theft” that fails to consider the cultural significance of the African American experience.

“For me, Black-identifying was not a choice so much as a fact. I am Black. Rachel Dolezal is not.”

This categorical rejection of Dolezal raises interesting questions about people’s freedom to self-identify. Unmoored from biology, what reasons can we give to oppose a white man’s decision to identify as a Chinese woman, or a man in his forties who decides to identify and live as a seven-year-old, or the tragic cases of otherkin – people identifying as animals? Please note: I am not claiming that these other modes of identification are on the same plane as gender dysphoria, only that there is no established consensus for why certain experiences are embraced and celebrated while others are considered outrageous or the sign of a mental illness.

7. Without a settled definition in our legal system for transgender, how can we avoid all sorts of problems, including bathroom access?

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry writes:

“Presumably, post-transition transgender people look like the gender they identify with. Who, exactly, is going to stop someone who looks like a woman from walking into a ladies’ room? Or someone who looks like a man from walking into a men’s room? The American nanny state may be out of control, but we still don’t have bathroom police.”

So why the uproar? Because, without clear definitions and markers of transgender beyond “I am what I say,” we are left with unclear guidelines and chaotic standards. Carl Trueman pointed to the incoherent regulations proposed by his local school board:

“On the one hand, it asserts that a student’s asserted gender identity has to be accepted, and must not be questioned or disregarded by staff. Moreover, the only exception is if staff have a ‘credible basis’ for believing the student is ‘improperly’ asserting a gender identity, vague and undefined terms that are open to abuse. Yet, the policy also claims that a student’s transgender status may constitute confidential medical information that should not be disclosed to parents or others, suggesting it is a medical condition. Which is it?”

Conclusion

The debate over the T in LGBT is likely to get louder in coming years. Yes, there are some in our society who would scapegoat people with gender dysphoria who would cast them as predators and “freaks.” Meanwhile, there are others who believe societal evolution depends on the abolishing of gender altogether and see the transgender experience as a way of moving beyond oppressive structures of “male” and “female.”

For Christians, however, neither of these options is available to us.

We believe God’s design of male and female to be structurally good, but we also understand gender dysphoria to be another symptom that reminds us we live in a fallen world. For this reason, we must extend love and compassion to anyone who experiences this kind of distress, even as we reject society’s efforts to establish a fluid understanding of personhood.


This article was originally published at TheGospelCoalition.com.




Target, Krauthammer, Reality and Evil

Target recently announced its new restroom policy, which embraces the absurd notion that in order to be inclusive, sex differences cannot be acknowledged or respected. In light of Target’s sex-integrated, co-ed restroom policy, I called my local Target and had this enlightening conversation with the store manager:

Me: Is it true that all Target restrooms are now co-ed?

Store manager: That’s not exactly how I would describe them.

Me: Well, are your women’s restrooms now open to people who are objectively male, and are your men’s’ restrooms now open to people who are objectively female?

Store manager: The restrooms are available to “transgenders” who identify as the opposite sex.

Me: But humans have both a “gender identity” and a sex, so your restrooms are now co-ed because co-ed means “having or including both men and women.”

Store manager: Our customers can use the restroom of the sex with which they identify.

Me: If a person who appears to be a man enters a women’s restroom, how do you determine whether he’s gender dysphoric or not.

Store manager: If a female customer reports that a man is in the women’s restroom, we would follow-up.

Me: What is your procedure for following up?

Store manager: I don’t know.

Me: So, if I and my three-year-old granddaughter are in the women’s restroom, a man enters, and I report it to store management, you don’t know what would happen next?

Store manager: Well, if this person were not bothering you, he could be in there.

Me: But sharing a restroom with someone of the opposite sex bothers me.

Store manager: Well, Target believes people should be able to use whichever restroom they feel comfortable in.

Me: What if non-gender-dysphoric men—you know, men who share the same sex as “transgenders”— feel more comfortable in women’s restrooms? May they use them? And how would you stop them anyway? You evidently have no procedures to determine if males in women’s restrooms have been diagnosed as gender-dysphoric.

Store manager: (silence)

Me: So, your restrooms are in reality co-ed because people have a sex that cannot change.

Store Manager: Yes, it can.

Me: Are you a science-denier? Even gender-dysphoric persons know they can’t change their sex.

Store Manager: I’m not going to argue with you. 

So, there you have it folks. If women don’t want to use restrooms with men, they will have to use the family restroom, but if gender-dysphoric men don’t want to use restrooms with men, they don’t have to use the family restroom. They get to use the women’s restroom. Gender-dysphoric men are permitted to use restrooms with only women, while women are not permitted to use restrooms with only women.

Many conservatives perplexed by the lies and dragooned by the tactics of body-rejecting activists and their “progressive” allies do nothing when there is much to be done. And they get little help from conservative punditry who seem not to grasp the significance of allowing objectively, immutably male persons in women’s restrooms and vice versa.

Last week the estimable Charles Krauthammer dismissed the so-called “bathroom wars” as “a solution in search of an issue,” suggesting that because those who suffer from gender-dysphoria are few in number, laws requiring that restrooms correspond to sex are silly. Astonishingly, Krauthammer blamed these laws on conservatives:

[D]o we really have an epidemic of transgenders being evil in bathrooms?

Krauthammer…said transgenders using public bathrooms has become a problem “precisely because Republicans in North Carolina decided it was a problem.”

Though it is true that Republicans proposed and passed the North Carolina law that Krauthammer was discussing, they were merely responding to the efforts of gender-dysphoric activists to access opposite-sex restrooms. In other words, Republicans didn’t “decide” that men in women’s’ restrooms was a problem. It is in reality a problem created by gender-dysphoric activists.

As a percentage of the population, there are few gender-dysphoric persons, and until recently, they were using restrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their actual sex, so of course we have no “epidemic of transgenders being evil in bathrooms.”

Further, the concern is not centrally about gender-dysphoric persons “doing evil,” but of male predators pretending to be gender-dysphoric in order to easily view, record, or assault women and girls.

The other and at least as serious concern is with what these policies teach about physical embodiment as male or female. Arguing that because few “transgenders” have been “doing evil in bathrooms,” there is no problem, Krauthammer ignores the fact that men in women’s restrooms is the problem, and it is evil.

An uncharacteristically superficial Krauthammer ignores the radical ideas that are embedded in and taught by liberal “bathroom” policies:

  • Such policies teach that if people are uncomfortable with their sex, the problem is with their sex—not their feelings.
  • Such policies teach the arguable belief that subjective feelings about one’s sex are more important, indeed more real, than objective physical embodiment as male or female.
  • Such policies teach that while gender-dysphoric men should be permitted to use restrooms with only women, objectively female persons should not be permitted to use restrooms with only women.
  • Such policies teach that in order to be compassionate, one must treat gender-dysphoric persons as if they are in reality the sex they wish they were.
  • Such policies teach that feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy derive not from physical embodiment as male or female but from desires about one’s sex.
  • Such policies teach that stalls and curtains provide sufficient privacy to separate women from gender-dysphoric men but not sufficient privacy to separate gender-dysphoric men from normal men.

If we define “evil” as reductively as Krauthammer seems to when he says there is no “epidemic of transgenders doing evil in restrooms,” he’s right. If evil is understood as direct physical harm to another, there is no epidemic. But for many, evil is defined as “morally wrong,” and “harmful” and includes doing violence (i.e., “injury, as from distortion of meaning or fact”) to the idea that objective, immutable biological sex carries profound meaning and is the source of feelings of modesty and the desire of privacy that men and women naturally experience. This epidemic of philosophical violence is infecting not just corporate policies but school policies and thereby the minds and hearts of children far too young to comprehend the evil being done.

Take ACTION:  So, here are three things that conservatives must do:

1.) Those with children in public schools must tell their administrators that under no circumstance are their children permitted to share restrooms or locker rooms with children of the opposite sex. If gender dysphoric children have the right to refuse to use locker rooms and restrooms with those whose “gender identity” they don’t share, then other children have the right to refuse to use locker rooms and restrooms with those whose sex they don’t share.

2.)  DO NOT use Leftist language. Language matters:

Do not call them “gender neutral” restrooms. Call them sex-integrated or co-ed restrooms to keep attention on the objective reality the Left seeks to deny.

Do not use the term “transgender.” Use gender dysphoria or gender-dysphoric persons.

Do not use opposite-sex pronouns when referring to gender-dysphoric persons. Using opposite-sex pronouns does not constitute an act of love. It constitutes participation in and facilitation of a destructive fiction.

3.) As much as possible, avoid using Target. It is not possible to boycott every business that violates true principles, but policies as egregiously offensive as Target’s sex-integrated restroom policy demand a response. And while you’re boycotting Target, call the store manager of your local Target to ask about their co-ed restrooms. Ask management the hard questions, and don’t use liberal language. Use precise, clear, reality-based language. And consider signing on to the AFA Boycott Target pledge.

In this brave new world remade in the image of the Godless, confused, solipsistic, and sexually anarchical, objective, immutable biological sex is meaningless. Please stand for truth and reality publicly, courageously, perseveringly, and unapologetically—and not just when it’s cost-free.



Donate now button

 




Consumers 140xs More Likely to Buy from Liberal-Sponsoring Corporations

Whether you’re going out for a pizza, a coffee, a grocery run, a tank of gas or a washer and dryer, chances are more than 142 times greater that your hard-earned dollars are lining the pockets of your favorite corporations that are funding liberal, anti-family organizations and activities.

Krispy Kreme or Dunkin Donuts? A VW or a Toyota? Carl’s Jr. or McDonald’s? A Coke or a Dr. Pepper? Lowes or Home Depot? Whatever you purchase, your dollars are more than likely going to liberal or conservative causes … and most likely the former.

2ndVote has just unleashed a multi-faceted scoring system that pinpoints the most anti-family and pro-family corporations (and those in-between) vying for consumers’ dollars. Unfortunately for conservative and Christian consumers, most of their dollars often end up funding causes that work against the family values and causes they champion.

2nd Vote National Outreach Director Robert Kuykendall wants to get conservatives in tune with what they’re supporting with every purchase.

“2nd Vote is dedicated to helping conservative consumers keep their spending in line with their values,” Kuykendall told LifeSiteNews, announcing the launch of the organization’s newest project. “We believe that everyone has one vote for their values at the ballot box, but they have the opportunity to vote on their values every day with their wallets.”

To make consumers more aware of where their dollars are going and to hold corporations accountable for the activities and behaviors they support, hundreds of corporations have been graded on seven different issues — Marriage, Pro-Life, 2nd Amendment Rights, Common Core, Corporate Welfare, School Choice, and Environment.

“We believe the reason for this is that Americans who hold pro-life and other traditional values have not done a good job holding these entities accountable,” Kuykendall explained. “We use a 5-point scoring scale to represent a philosophical orientation on the issue and overall: a score of 1 means a corporation’s activity is Liberal and a 5 means the activity is Conservative. However, we also believe that a Neutral score, which we designate as a 3, is a good thing because we can show that that corporation’s activity does not go against our values.”

Kuykendall gives an example of what started his endeavor and how purchases or donations are more than they might seem. For instance, most didn’t know that buying a Ford Mustang, using your American Express, filing up your tank at Shell or drinking an Ensure would fund abortions through Planned Parenthood.

“2nd Vote was actually born out of pro-life principles,” Kuykendall points out. “One of our founding members discovered that the dollars he was regularly donating to the March of Dimes were going to Planned Parenthood. The question from the beginning was, ‘Why would a charity or corporation fund a group whose activity goes against the traditional values of so many Americans?'”

Calling all corporations …

Here’s a glimpse of how 2ndVote rated some of the world’s top corporations when it comes to the stuff and services it buys. The ratings represent the average score the corporations earned on all seven issues combined. Scoring ranges are as follows: 1─ Liberal, 2─ Lean Liberal, 3─ Neutral, 4─ Lean Conservative, 5— Conservative. Just a note … only two corporations scored in the Conservative 4─5 range, while 285 corporations rated in the Liberal 1─2 range (142.5 times more than their Righter counterparts).

To start things off, let’s rev into a test drive, but instead of the lowest 0─60, conservatives will be looking for highest from 1─5: Hyundai (3.0), Volkswagen (3.0), Nissan (2.8), Audi (2.8), Subaru (2.5), Honda (2.0), Chrysler (2.0), Ford (1.8), GM (1.3), Toyota (1.0), Lexus (1.0).

After revving off the showroom floor, here ‘s how the high-octane caffeine and baked goods corporations line up out of the blocks, with Starbucks not looking too stellar and Seattle’s Best looking worst to conservatives: Krispy Kreme (3.0), Tim Horton’s (3.0), Caribou Coffee (2.8), Dunkin Donuts (2.5), Seattle’s Best Coffee (1.0), Starbucks (1.0).

Now it’s time for the shopping carts to roll. Here’s a report card that wouldn’t make the late conservative Sam Walton very proud: Albertsons (3.0), Trader Joe’s (3.0), Kroger (3.0), Whole Foods (2.3), Costco (2.3), Target (1.8), Safeway (1.8), Walmart (1.3), Sam’s Club (1.0).

Well, we haven’t seen anything over 3.0 yet, so here’s a taste of what conservatives want to know, with everyone’s favorite chicken sandwich maker scoring the highest overall conservative rating of all corporations in the project: Chick-fil-a (4.3), Papa John’s (3.0), Domino’s (3.0), Long John Silver’s (3.0), Carl’s Jr. (3.0), Jamba Juice (3.0), Outback Steakhouse (3.0), Burger King (3.0), Cheesecake Factory (3.0), Arby’s (3.0), Orange Julius (3.0), IHOP (2.8), Wendy’s (2.8), Sonic ((2.8), Denny’s (2.8), White Castle (2.8), Chili’s (2.8), In-N-Out Burger (2.6), Panera Bread (2.6), Subway (2.5), Cracker Barrel (2.5), Baskin Robbins (2.5), Jack in the Box (2.5), Dairy Queen (2.5), Hardee’s (2.4), Applebee’s (2.3), McDonald’s (2.3), KFC (2.2), Pizza Hut (2.2), Taco Bell (2.0), Red Lobster (2.0), Olive Garden (2.0), Chipotle (2.0), Longhorn Steakhouse (2.0).

And here’s to hitting your favorite filling station after a quick bite: ConocoPhillips (2.8), Chevron (2.5), Valero (2.3), Shell (2.0), BP (1.9), ExxonMobil (1.9).

Ironically, the world’s largest corporations specializing in making kid’s toys aren’t as kid-friendly when it comes to the anti-family causes they fund: Toys R Us (2.8), Mattel (2.4), Lego (2.4), Hasbro (2.3), Crayola (2.3).

When Americans run to their retailers, the family values champion Hobby Lobby is the only conservative standout: Hobby Lobby (3.8), Jo-Ann (3.0), Bed Bath & Beyond (3.0), Radio Shack (3.0), Dillards (3.0), Zales (3.0), 7-Eleven (3.0), Michael’s (3.0), Aeropostale (3.0), Kay Jewelers (3.0), Rite Aid (2.8), Kohl’s (2.8), Barnes & Noble (2.5), JCPenny (2.5), Hallmark (2.5), Kmart (2.5), Sears (2.5), Dollar General (2.4), Walgreens (2.2), Office Depot (2.0), Ralph Lauren (2.0), Macy’s (2.0), Office Max (1.9), Gap (1.9), Banana Republic (1.8), eBay (1.8), Old Navy (1.8), Nordstrom (1.8), Marshalls (1.8), Best Buy (1.3).

And many apparel and accessories giants aren’t conservative in more ways than one: Cabela’s (3.5), Under Armour (3.3), Eddie Bauer (3.0), Christian Dior (3.0), Zales (3.0), Jockey (3.0), Aeropostale (3.0), Kay Jewelers (3.0), Ann Taylor (2.8), Hanes (2.8), Tommy Hilfiger (2.8), Van Heusen (2.8), Forever 21), New Balance (2.8), Russell Athletic (2.8), Fruit of the Loom (2.5), Ambercrombie & Fitch (2.0), Calvin Klein (2.0), REI (2.0), Ralph Lauren (2.0), Adidas (2.0), Gap (1.9), Banana Republic (1.8), Old Navy (1.8), T.J. Maxx (1.8), Dockers (1.5), Levis (1.5), Converse (1.5), Hurley (1.5), Victoria’s Secret (1.3).

In the sporting goods industry, there are a number of conservative good sports: Bass Pro Shop (3.5), Cabela’s (3.5), Remington (3.4), Under Armour (3.3), Dick’s Sporting Goods (3.3), Russell Athletic (2.8), Amazon (2.3), Adidas (2.0), NFL (2.0), REI (2.0), Converse (1.5), Nike (1.5).

Here’s how the home and garden products merchandisers stacked up, showing that ACE is the place for conservatives: ACE Hardware (3.5), John Deere (2.8), Toro (2.8), Black & Decker (2.8), 1-800-Flowers (2.6), Overstock.com (2.6), Lowe’s (2.5), Clorox (2.3), Amazon (2.3), DuPont (1.9), Dow (1.8), IKEA (1.8), Home Depot (1.8).

And when traveling away from home, some destinations are more conservative than others: Expedia (3.3), Priceline (3.0), American Airlines (2.8), AAA (2.8), Hyatt (2.5), United Airlines (2.4), Orbitz (2.4), JetBlue Airways (2.3), Hilton (2.3), Marriot (2.3), Southwest Airlines (2.3), Alaska Airlines (2.0), British Airways (2.0), Delta Airlines (1.5), US Airways (1.5).

Not so shockingly, most corporations putting out electronic gadgetry are leaning to the Left, with some exceptions: Vizio (3.0), Acer (3.0), Texas Instruments (2.3), Oracle (2.3), Adobe (2.3), Sony (2.2), Lockheed Martin (2.0), Dell (1.9), IBM (1.9), Cisco (1.8), Intel (1.7), Hewlett Packard (1.5), Xerox (1.5), Apple (1.2), Microsoft (1.2), Samsung (1.0).

And phone and Internet companies are witnessed making some liberal connections, as well, with one exception: The Sienna Group (3.7), Twitter (2.6), Verizon, (2.1), Sprint (2.0), AT&T (1.7), Comcast (1.4), Motorola (1.3), Facebook (1.2), Google (1.2), T-Mobile (1.0).

Health and beauty also tends to lean toward the Left: Chanel (2.8), Mary Kay 2.6), L’Oreal (2.4), The Body Shop (2.4), Colgate-Palmolive (2.3), Lancome (2.0), Clinique (2.0), Estee Lauder (2.0), Unilever (2.0), Calvin Klein, (2.0), Avon (1.8), Johnson & Johnson (1.5), Bath & Body Works (1.3).

Proceeds from everybody’s favorite foods don’t always go to everybody’s favorite causes: HoneyBaked Ham (3.0), Butterball (3.0), Godiva (3.0), Blue Bell Ice Cream (3.0), Russell Stover (3.0), Hormel (2.8), Tyson Foods (2.8), Hillshire Farms (2.8), Campbell’s Soup (2.5), Dr. Pepper/Snapple (2.5), Nestle (2.5), Hershey (2.4), Anheuser-Busch (2.2), Kraft (2.0), Ben & Jerry’s (1.8), General Mills (1.5), Kellogg’s (1.5), Tostidos (1.5), Coca-Cola (1.3), Pepsi (1.3), Mars (1.0).

And some financial corporations don’t put your money everywhere you want it to be: American Express (3.0), H&R Block (3.0), Capital One (2.8), Master Card (2.4), Discover (2.3), Fannie Mae (2.0), Sun Trust (2.0), Freddie Mac (1.8), PayPal (1.8), Morgan Stanley( 1.6), Citigroup (1.5), JP Morgan Chase (1.4), Bank of America (1.4), Visa (1.3), Ernst & Young (1.3), Goldman Sachs (1.0), Wells Fargo (1.0).

Originally published at OneNewsNow.com.


 The Truth Project

First Annual IFI Worldview Conference
featuring Dr. Del Tackett
April 10-11, 2015

CLICK HERE for Details