In the past three days, Twitter has suspended the accounts of the well-known satirical website Babylon Bee and of Division I swimmer Reka Gyorgy. What Gyorgy and Babylon Bee share in common is a willingness to criticize the alchemical superstitions of the “trans” cult.

Babylon Bee mocked USA Today for giving the Woman of the Year award to assistant secretary of health at the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Richard Leland Levine, alias “Rachel” Levine, who is a man. In response to USA Today’s insulting award, Babylon Bee tweeted that it had awarded Levine its Man of the Year award. Twitter suspended Babylon Bee’s account for alleged “hateful conduct,” a suspension that will be lifted only when Babylon Bee deletes the tweet.

And the left claims they hate censorship.

Former Olympic swimmer and current Virginia Tech swimmer, Reka Gyorgy sent a letter to the NCAA and tweeted about the injustice of having to compete against a biological male—also known as a man—which cost Gyorgy a chance to swim the 500 freestyle in the NCAA finals. Gyorgy tweeted,

My finals spot was stolen by Lia Thomas, who is a biological male. Until we all refuse to compete nothing will change. Thanks for all the support retweets and follows. I won’t stop fighting.

Christian obligations

Christians should stand publicly with those who are leading the way on this transgressive nonsense, like Reka Gyorgy, Babylon Bee, and this father and mother of a female NCAA swimmer:

Princeton University law professor Robert P. George recently urged those who reject the assumptions on which the “trans” ideology is built to live with integrity:

When you’re pressed to state or list your pronouns, you’re being asked to sign up for a practice with certain ideological presuppositions. It is not, and cannot be, a simple matter of politesse. If you believe in the ideology, and don’t mind being pressed to express your loyalty to its tenets, then, by all means, be my guest. But if you don’t believe it, or if you believe it but object as a matter of principle to being pressured to make public affirmations of beliefs, then stand by your principles and don’t sign onto the practice. The key things, either way, are to recognize what’s going on and have the integrity—and courage—to stick to your principles.

If theologically orthodox Christians believe their beliefs are true, then they should act like it.

Christian failures

The courage of these parents raises the question, why aren’t all Christian parents of high school and collegiate athletes saying publicly what these parents said?

There are two reasons that account for the refusal of so many Christians to speak truth. First, many Christians refuse to stand for truth in the public square unless they are guaranteed that doing so will be cost-free. But that is not what Christ promises those who follow him. He promises that the Christian walk will be costly. He promises that Christians will be mocked and hated just as he was.

While Christians claim to admire men and women who have stood steadfastly and suffered grievously for the faith even to the point of martyrdom, many Christians teach their children by word and deed to flee from even the mildest form of persecution. Say and do nothing that will tarnish a reputation, cost a job promotion, or lose a friend.

According to the leftist, “whose truth?” crowd, there is no objective truth—oh, except every moral belief they hold. THOSE beliefs—the source of which is their reservoir of deep feelings—are absolute, objective, transcendent, eternal moral truths, disagreement with which leftists believe should cost you your reputation, your ability to earn a living, and friendships.

In a sermon series on Romans and preached over fifty years ago, Pastor Martyn Lloyd-Jones identified the second reason for Christian silence in the face of evil, a problem that has only grown since he preached about it:

Christian people are mistaking natural qualities, niceness, a cultural veneer or politeness, for true Christian grace. … How often today is affability mistaken for saintliness! “What a gracious man he is,” they say. What they really mean is this: he never criticizes, and he agrees with everybody and everything. I know of nothing more dangerous than that. … Affability is not saintliness. … We are now judging only by our own subjective feelings, by our impressions and reactions. Is there anything so dangerous?

Real love, as opposed to some saccharine, ever-affirming substitute—requires first knowing what is true.

The danger of judging only by our own subjective feelings is nowhere more obvious than in the “trans” cult. “Trans”-activists in thrall to the delusional and dangerous idea that authentic identity is constituted solely by each person’s subjective feelings are destroying lives and necessary institutions and conventions.

Will Thomas, alias “Lia,” has likely been convinced by the “trans” cult that what he’s doing is brave and important. He’s likely been convinced that he will go down in history as a much beloved hero—the Rosa Parks of the “trans rights” movement. Someone should tell Thomas that “trans” cultists don’t care about him. They don’t care about anyone or anything other than their narcissistic, solipsistic, perverse desires.

They don’t care that Thomas will lose most of his swimming buddies because men know that he is stealing places and records from women.

“Trans”-cultists don’t care about the sad life Thomas will lead going forward.

They don’t care about the young women who will not want to date a cross-dressing man.

They don’t care about all the young women who after spending a decade swimming four hours a day all year long, had this year of collegiate swimming ruined.

They don’t care about the feelings of all the women whose locker rooms were invaded by a man who openly undressed in front of them this swim season.

And “trans”-cultists certainly don’t care about Will Thomas’ eternal life.

While “authenticity” for Thomas and Levine centers on their disordered subjective desires and their rejection of material reality, for other people authenticity centers on acceptance of biological reality and biblical truth—including the importance of not bearing false witness. For those people, denying God’s creation of males and females and bearing false witness by using false pronouns are acts of rebellion against God. For those people, such dishonorable acts are profoundly harmful and unloving acts.

Those who claim to revere diversity, equity, inclusivity, tolerance, freedom, and authenticity should be first in line to defend the right of conservative Christians to live authentically Christian lives.

The “trans”-gender house is built on a sandy foundation of faulty assumptions, delusions, biased pseudoscience, and bald-faced lies, all of which are propped up by buckets of ducats from the likes of the Pritzker family, the Stryker family, Tim Gill, and “Martine” Rothblatt and by the suppression of speech. It’s an ugly evil project that is destroying bodies, minds, souls, families, churches, schools, the practice of medicine, institutions related to lawmaking, speech rights, and religious liberty. Who could possibly be behind a project of such scope and enormity?

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Gender-Pretenders-Destroying-Authenticity-and-Liberty-94.mp3

In the midst of our dangerous, steady descent into cultural madness, there are signs of encouragement as well. The morally-based, rationally-grounded resistance is rising. More and more people are saying enough is enough. Even the liberal media is giving voice to this dissent.

But this is what many of us have been expecting for years, knowing that the cultural radicals would overplay their hand. A push-back has been inevitable, as witnessed by these recent examples.

First, consider this op-ed published May 24 in USA Today by Chelsea Mitchell, titled, “I was the fastest girl in Connecticut. But transgender athletes made it an unfair fight.”

She explains that, despite being ranked the fastest 55-meter female runner in her state, time after time, she has been losing big races. Why? It’s because she is now racing against biological males.

As she wrote, “I’ve lost four women’s state championship titles, two all-New England awards, and numerous other spots on the podium to transgender runners. I was bumped to third place in the 55-meter dash in 2019, behind two transgender runners. With every loss, it gets harder and harder to try again.”

This is as outrageous as it is unfair, and soon enough, it will reach the breaking point as the world’s best female athletes lose to mediocre male athletes who identify as female.

Will the next Olympic games (if they’re held soon, despite the COVID outbreak in Japan) mark that breaking point? Either way, it is coming.

Second, there are now so many young adults regretting their decision to become transgender that the last episode of Sixty Minutes devoted time to the subject of “detransitioning.”

In response to this powerful segment, one which goes against the normal, trans-celebratory mood of the liberal media, Keira Bell tweeted, “I stand behind you all, I could see how difficult that was for you all to speak on. Honest, raw and powerful. I can only hope that viewers will pay attention and read between the lines. Stop the lies.” (For Bell’s own moving story of detransitioning, see here.)

Naturally, trans-activists and their allies are upset with Sixty Minutes for airing these stories. But you can be sure of this: if there were not a lot of young people regretting the tragic, life-altering decisions they made, Sixty Minutes would not have offered such a sympathetic treatment.

In February of this year, Newsweek printed the gut-wrenching story of Scott Newgent, herself a female to male  (FTM) transgender. The op-ed was titled, “We Need Balance When It Comes To Gender Dysphoric Kids. I Would Know.”

Newgent ended the article with this powerful plea: “I am currently building a bipartisan army to protect our children, hold the medical industry accountable and educate our president and the rest of society about the dangers of transgender extremism. We must throw our differences aside for a moment; I promise you, once children are safe, we can resume fighting. But until children are safe, nothing else matters.”

Newgent and I have since interacted several times, since she is totally serious about working together across ideological lines for the good of these children. The diverse coalition is growing.

What is tragic, though, is that it took two years for Newgent to find a major, secular publication willing to carry her well-documented article. What is positive is that Newsweek did decide to publish it. These stories must be told and will be told. As a result, the push-back will only intensify.

Fourth, a retired professor has been removed from an American Psychological Association email discussion group after challenging the idea that there are more than two biological sexes.

As reported by College Fix, “John Staddon, an emeritus professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University, was taken off the Society for Behavioral Neuroscience and Comparative Psychology Division 6 listserv overseen by the APA. (This group is devoted to “studying the biology of behavior. Their focus is on behavior and its relation to perception, learning, memory, cognition, motivation, and emotion.”)

As Staddon explained, “This incident just illustrates the current inability of some scientific communities to tolerate dissent about issues related to sex and race. Psychology and sociology seem to be especially flawed in this respect.”

According to Staddon, what likely got him taken off was this post: “Hmm… Binary view of sex false? What is the evidence? Is there a Z chromosome?”

What? Only two biological sexes? Heresy! Ban him!

You can read Staddon’s actual exchange with the APA oversight for yourself and draw your own conclusions. The evidence is fairly straightforward, and the extreme bias against rational thinking is on full display.

But, as Ben Shapiro has often reminded us, facts don’t care about your feelings. And as Ryan Anderson and others have pointed out, biology is not bigotry. Reality cannot be denied for long.

Soon enough, more and more fair-minded Americans will say, “I did not sign up for this,” realizing that the slippery slope we warned about is much steeper than they realized.

They wanted to see equality and tolerance. Instead, they ended up with the destruction of the very foundations of our society, not to mention a new, oppressive Big Brother ruling the day.

So, the hour is urgent, and the sooner this cultural shift happens, the better. This is not a game we can afford to play for long.

At the same time, as our nation begins to regain its sanity, with God’s help, let it be with greater compassion for those who do struggle. Standing for what is right and true and best does not mean hating those who perceive things differently.

Let us, then, commit to doing the right thing, and at the same time, let us commit to showing mercy on those who are hurting. On with the truth-based, love-empowered cultural revolution.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

The founding of higher education in America was almost entirely Christian, to the point that, even by 1881, “80 percent of the colleges in the United States were church related and private.” As one Christian author pointed out, “106 of the first 108 colleges were started on the Christian faith. By the close of 1860 there were 246 colleges in America. Seventeen of these were state institutions; almost every other one was founded by Christian denominations or by individuals who avowed a religious purpose.”

Yet an op-ed published in USA Today has called for the NCAA to ban Oral Roberts University because of its biblically-based, Christian standards. What an example of bigotry and intolerance, not to mention an anti-American spirit – and I mean the op-ed, not ORU.

According to sports columnist Hemal Jhaveri, as ORU made a surprising run in the annual NCAA men’s basketball tourney, “the university’s deeply bigoted anti-LGBTQ+ polices can’t and shouldn’t be ignored.”

Put another way, ORU’s Christian views shouldn’t be ignored. Yes, Jhaveri tells us,

“Twice in their student handbook, Oral Roberts specifically prohibits homosexuality. In their student conduct section, under the heading of Personal Behavior, the school expressly condemns homosexuality, mentioning it in the same breath as ‘occult practices.’”

How horrific and unthinkable. A Christian university founded by Oral Roberts holds to Christian values. A Christian university that bases its code of conduct on the Bible holds to biblical values.

Oh, the bigotry. ORU should be banned!

Yes, this is the thought process of Jhaveri, who is so shocked by ORU’s code of conduct that she quotes an entire section verbatim:

Students are expected to maintain the highest standards of integrity, honesty, modesty and morality…Certain behaviors are expressly prohibited in Scripture and therefore should be avoided by members of the University community. They include theft, lying, dishonesty, gossip, slander, backbiting, profanity, vulgarity (including crude language), sexual promiscuity (including adultery, any homosexual behavior, premarital sex), drunkenness, immodesty of dress and occult practices.

How about we quote the words of the apostle Paul directly – the words of the Bible? Paul wrote, “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).

Jhaveri’s problem is with Scripture, not with ORU. And Jhaveri, through the vehicle of USA Today, is, by implication, calling for the NCAA to ban any university that honors Scripture.

Think about that for a moment. And think about what the Christian founders of Harvard and Yale and Princeton and a host of other major universities would have felt had they known what would happen to their beloved schools.

One of the original rules of conduct at Harvard stated:

“Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life.” And, “Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day . . . .”

Now, a sports columnist writing for a national publication wants the NCAA to ban a university from competition because it honors the Scriptures. Is it any wonder that America is so morally and spiritual confused today? When it comes to sexual mores, our fall has been precipitous. Jhaveri writes,

“As a private university and under the banner of fundamentalist Christian beliefs, the school is free to impose whatever standards of behavior they see fit, even if those standards are wildly out of line with modern society and the basic values of human decency. Now, as Oral Roberts gains national attention, the focus shouldn’t just be on their very good men’s basketball team, but on their prejudiced teachings and moral regressiveness.

“That Oral Roberts wants to keep its students tied to toxic notions of fundamentalism that fetishize chastity, abstinence and absurd hemlines is a larger cultural issue that can be debated. What is not up for debate however is their anti-LGBTQ+ stance, which is nothing short of discriminatory and should expressly be condemned by the NCAA.”

In point of fact, USA Today should be ashamed of itself for providing a platform for such bigoted, anti-Christian, Bible-mocking commentary.

The truth is that ORU is not “fetishiz[ing] chastity, abstinence and absurd hemlines.” Rather, in a sea of immorality and promiscuity and immodesty, ORU is simply calling for decency and modesty and integrity.

The university also recognizes that – perish the thought – marriage is the union of a man and a woman. But for Jhaveri, this too, is an example of religious fanaticism. She writes, “as part of their honor code, the university requires students to abide by a pledge saying that they will not engage in ‘homosexual activity,’ and that they will not be united in marriage other ‘than the marriage between one man and one woman.’”

Oh, the horror. A Christian university honoring marriage. Ban them!

Sadly, Jhaveri, with the help of USA Today, is guilty of glorifying anti-Christian, Bible-mocking, morality-twisting bigotry, thereby spreading hatred and narrow-mindedness rather than tolerance and grace. A Christian university should not be penalized for being Christian. As for those who disapprove of those standards, there are hundreds of others schools to attend.

In response, then, to this ill-conceived editorial, Christian schools should be strongly encouraged to reinforce (and/or return to) their Christian roots, ORU should be applauded for standing strong, and USA Today should be challenged for giving place to such Bible-bashing bigotry.

Having said that, let the young people compete and have fun. Jhaveri’s editorial should not be allowed to detract from the moment – or from ORU’s unlikely run so far.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Let’s join USA Today and Fox News for a short, illuminating stroll down memory lane:

2001: Following the Bush vs. Gore election in 2000, “Members of the Congressional House Black Caucus spent 20 minutes objecting as they sought to block Florida’s 25 electoral votes” from being certified for George Bush.

2005: “In the joint meeting of Congress to certify Bush’s win over Democrat John Kerry, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, received a Senate signature to object to the electoral votes from Ohio. It came from Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. The two Democrats raised concerns about voting irregularities.” (emphasis added)

At that time, Illinois’ corrupt senator Dick Durbin said,

Some may criticize our colleague from California for bringing us here for this brief debate. I thank her for doing that because it gives members an opportunity once again on a bipartisan basis to look at a challenge that we face not just in the last election in one State but in many States.

And Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) issued a statement saying,

I believe that Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) have performed a very valuable public service in bringing this debate before the Congress. As Americans, we should all be troubled by reports of voting problems in many parts of the country.

But that was then, and this is now, and now Durbin describes Senator Josh Hawley’s similar effort as “The political equivalent of barking at the moon. This won’t be taken seriously, nor should it be.”

Van Hollen harrumphed faux-indignantly,

Sen. Hawley’s actions are grossly irresponsible. He’s attempting to undermine our democratic process, fuel Trump’s lies about voter fraud, and delay the certification of Biden’s win.

While Van Hollen described the efforts of Boxer and Tubb Jones as a “very valuable public service,” he calls Hawley’s efforts a “reckless stunt.”

Please take special note that Durbin, Van Hollen, and many other leftists and some RINOs are focusing their laser beams of destruction on Hawley even though other Republicans in Congress objected to the vote-certification process. Is that just because Hawley was going to be the central spokesperson articulating the constitutional issue raised by peculiar electoral mischief that took place in Pennsylvania—an issue that mild-mannered, non-insurrectionist Byron York described as “a fundamental issue that is important to all 50 states”?

Or could it have something to do with Hawley’s singular and bold attack on the outrageous Big Tech monopolies and on social media tyrants’ Section 230 protections?  According to CNBC “About 98% of political contributions from internet companies this cycle went to Democrats,” and that 98% constitutes millions of persuasive dollars.

2017: Following the 2016 win by Trump, “Half a dozen Democratic House members raised formal objections to the Electoral College vote count. … The objections were based on Russian election interference, allegations of voter suppression or what Democrats considered to be illegal votes cast by Republican members of the Electoral College.”

Now, when Senators Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz pursue the same constitutional procedure that Democrats have pursued three times, Congress-despots call for their expulsion from Congress, and the House Homeland Security Committee Chair, U.S. Representative Bennie Thompson, suggests they might be placed on the no-fly list once reserved for terrorists.

Democrats who unjustifiably whine that Hawley and Cruz were trying to subvert the electoral process have been weirdly silent about Twitter’s effective effort to subvert the electoral process by censoring the Hunter Biden/Joe Biden/China collusion story. And these hypocritical Democrats say nothing about Facebook’s and Google’s wildly successful algorithmic efforts to subvert the electoral process.

AOC and other leftist members of Congress have been demanding Silicon Valley autocrats get rid of the chief threat to “progressive” political hegemony by cancelling the upstart Parler, which serves as the neutral platform that Twitter and Facebook falsely claim to be.

Leftists in Congress argued that Parler had to be silenced because of the role it played in the Capitol attack. But liberal journalist Glenn Greenwald discovered that Twitter, Facebook, and Google-owned YouTube played a far more significant role in promoting the riot. To date, no member of Congress has demanded they be shut down. Greenwald writes,

The Capitol breach was planned far more on Facebook and YouTube. As Recode reported, while some protesters participated in both Parler and Gab, many of the calls to attend the Capitol were from YouTube videos, while many of the key planners “have continued to use mainstream platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.” …

So why did Democratic politicians and journalists focus on Parler rather than Facebook and YouTube? Why did Amazon, Google and Apple make a flamboyant showing of removing Parler from the internet while leaving much larger platforms with far more extremism and advocacy of violence flowing on a daily basis?

In part it is because these Silicon Valley giants — Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple — donate enormous sums of money to the Democratic Party and their leaders, so of course Democrats will cheer them rather than call for punishment or their removal from the internet. Part of it is because Parler is an upstart, a much easier target to try to destroy than Facebook or Google. And in part it is because the Democrats are about to control the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress, leaving Silicon Valley giants eager to please them by silencing their adversaries.

Smelling the conservative chum in the water, corporate America has joined the congressional and Big Tech lefties’ feeding frenzy, cutting off all donations to any of the 147 Republican Congresspersons who contested the certification of election results. Here’s the list—so far—of the companies with conservative blood dripping from their lips:

Airbnb, Amazon, American Express, AT&T, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Comcast, Commerce Bank, Dow Chemical, Marriott, Mastercard, and Verizon.

They’re shutting down donations to any Republican who opposed certification—even if those Republicans did what Democrats have done in prior elections and even with no evidence that they supported, endorsed, or incited either violence or an insurrection.

The Walt Disney Corporation, Ben & Jerry’s, Coca Cola, and JP Morgan rightly issued statements of condemnation of the Capitol building assault. I’ve been searching the Internet far and wide, but I can’t find similar statements from corporate America during or following the lawless BLM riots that caused billions of dollars of damage and included destruction of federal property, harassment of members of Congress, direct assaults on police officers and police precincts, and the looting and arson of scores of businesses.

Oh wait, I remember now.  Corporate America issued statements of support for those riots and donated money to BLM.

Well, surely corporate behemoths issued condemnatory statements following these shocking words from Senator Chuck Schumer at a pro-human slaughter protest in October 2018:

I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

Sounds kind of like trying to subvert a judicial process. Has Hawley ever said anything even close to that?

Did corporate behemoths condemn Democrat U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal, who was arrested in June 2018 along with 630 other protesters at an illegal occupation of the Hart Senate Office Building? Thankfully, this lawlessness was led by women who are generally less likely to commit acts of violence—well, except for female BLM rioters who were recorded beating people up in the street riots of 2020.

Dishonest leftists argue ad nauseum that 1. private companies are entitled to make whatever decisions they want based on their corporate “principles,” 2. that the First Amendment doesn’t protect citizens from the consequences of their speech, and 3. that serfs customers who don’t like their corporate tyranny are “free” to take their business elsewhere.

The first point should be true and uncontroversial, but now the overriding operating principle of our soulless corporate behemoths that are vacuuming up America’s freedoms is a firm commitment to use their vast nearly unchecked power to impose destructive leftist ideologies everywhere.

Moreover, leftists don’t apply the principle of business freedom consistently. Leftists don’t really believe all businesses should be free to make business decisions in line with their principles.  Rather, leftists believe that businesses have the right to conduct business in line with their ethics as long as those ethics are pre-approved by leftists.

So, for example, teeny tiny Christian-owned businesses enjoy considerably less freedom than, say, the colossal Amazon. A Christian calligrapher is not permitted to refuse to make wedding invitations for a same-sex faux wedding based on her belief that homosexual acts and relationships are abhorrent to the God she serves.

The second point regarding consequences is completely true. Speaking freely does not guarantee freedom from consequences, and leftists are making sure those consequences include the inability to work in America or exercise one’s religion freely.

In a society controlled by corporate and Big Tech monopolies, only leftists are free to speak without fear of consequences. Conservatives face dire consequences for saying the very same things “progressives” say without fear of any consequences. Democrats can object to election certification, and they’re celebrated. Republicans object and they are accused of being insurrectionists, threatened with expulsion, and put on no-fly lists. Talk about a banana republic.

The third claim that conservatives are “free to take their business elsewhere” is false or will be soon if Americans don’t rise up in opposition to the tyranny of unelected corporate monopolists and Big Tech Overlords. If all corporate and Big Tech tyrants adopt the same unprincipled policies, conservative Americans will be unable to work, feed their families, exercise their religion, assemble, or speak in the public square.

If you know any honest leftists, ask them if they believe corporate behemoths should be free to fire or refuse to hire Americans who publicly say this election was unfair.

Ask them if they believe corporate behemoths should be free to fire or refuse to hire anyone who has publicly said homosexual acts are immoral and marriage is intrinsically sexually differentiated.

Ask them if they believe corporate behemoths should be free to fire or refuse to hire Americans who have publicly said persons born with healthy and properly functioning male anatomy are not and never can be women and don’t belong in women’s private spaces or sports.

What recourse do conservative, Constitution-respecting Republicans have left for fighting the dangerous collusion of Congress, corporate behemoths, and Big Tech monopolies to eradicate the First Amendment if the right to assemble and speak are in effect cancelled without even a public debate or vote?

See you in Siberia, my dissident friends.

Listen to this article read by Laurie: 

Please consider a gift to the Illinois Family Institute.
As always, your gift to IFI is tax-deductible and greatly appreciated!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Written by Cliff Kincaid

Billionaire George Soros was named “Philanthropist of the Year” by Inside Philanthropy magazine for his “…fight for academic freedom in Central Europe, and his resistance to the rising tide of authoritarianism worldwide.”  The former is a reference to gender studies programs and the latter concerns his ongoing campaign to undermine existing governments, causing chaos that makes more money for hedge fund currency manipulators and short-sellers like himself.

In the United States, he is best known for almost single-handedly creating a narco-nation through legalization of marijuana, causing human suffering and environmental devastation on a scale most people do not yet comprehend.

With the nation focused on the opioid danger, and President Donald J. Trump accusing China of pumping fentanyl into the veins of American victims through Mexico, the marijuana problem has gotten less attention. Indeed, liberal politicians and prosecutors, some of them getting Soros money, are treating the dope as a harmless substance and even a money-maker for local and state governments.

For one of the most sensational examples of a notorious pothead, consider Aaron Hernandez, the former NFL star who became a convicted killer and then killed himself in prison. The subject of a new Netflix series, “Killer Inside: The Mind of Aaron Hernandez,” he was a chronic marijuana user throughout college and his NFL career who experienced brain damage from the drug. The case proves a direct link between marijuana, mental illness, and violence.

In California, legal dope was supposed to displace illegal dope. But illicit cannabis cultivation sites are proliferating, offering a cheaper product than the government-approved variety. The Siskiyou County (California) Board of Supervisors voted on a new Declaration of Local Emergency that refers to illegal growers being responsible for “hundreds of pervasive fire hazards, insecticides, pesticides, rodenticides, fertilizers, trash, and unsanitary conditions which severely impact health, safety and quality of life for countless county residents…”

It’s in Barack Hussein Obama’s state of Illinois that we see some of the recent damage being done.

Illinois last year became the first state to legalize the marijuana business through legislation rather than by referendum and placing excise and sales taxes on the “product.” We can already see the predictable result — marijuana-related emergency room visits are on the rise. The local ABC-TV station in Chicago quotes doctors as saying the most common symptoms of the new potheads in Illinois are restlessness, heart palpitations and anxiety, but that “In some cases we are seeing full on psychosis, agitation, hallucinations.”

Incredibly, Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton was one of the first in line to purchase the dope. She bought clementine-flavored marijuana edible gummies and paid with cash. The scene was captured by CNN as she was pictured among hundreds of early-morning customers at a Chicago marijuana dispensary.  She probably went to the front of the line, but some people waited hours in order to buy their “recreational marijuana” and get “high.”

David E. Smith of the Illinois Family Institute comments, “Not only have lawmakers failed to do their due diligence before passing this marijuana law, but they also failed to heed the compelling research that indicates how regular use of marijuana affects young people, including an increased risk of psychiatric illnesses and a permanent loss of IQ points.”

In fact, this is the plan – dumb people down so they ruin their lives and then have to be dependent on the state for the rest of their lives. The potheads are fast becoming an important new constituency for the socialist-minded.

Before they actually navigate their way to the polls, they can relieve their pain by employing another “hemp” product – CBD or cannabidiol.  CBD is being hawked all over, even on the Rush Limbaugh show, and is being advertised as a treatment for “muscle soreness” and “everyday discomfort.” But many complaints have been filed with the FDA over the false medical claims made about CBD.

Dr. Kenneth Finn comments, “These products are everywhere, but there is little scientific evidence to support the hype that surrounds them.” He says unregulated CBD products hitting the market might be contaminated with heavy metals, pesticides, fungicides, rodenticides, insecticides, molds, E. coli, or fungus.

Official dope distribution is supposed to fill a financial gap. In Illinois, the sixth-biggest state, by population, Politico reporter Theodoric Meyer reports that it has seen its credit rating cut to near-junk status in the decade since the financial crisis. “Its bonds are now considered as risky as those of Russia and Romania,” he notes. “Its pension system is in worse shape than that of almost any other state.”

Writers Ted Dabrowski and John Klingner note that the population of Illinois dropped by 100,000 people between 2010 and 2018 and few of the state’s counties have been spared. “That means that 93 of the state’s 102 counties have shrunk since 2010,” they note. Adam Schuster, Director of Budget and Tax Research at the group, Illinois Policy, reports that 36 percent of the money the state allocates to education will be diverted away from teachers and students to meet required pension payments for retirees.

Former Illinois pension chief Marc Levine is quoted as saying a federal bailout may be required, making this a matter affecting all taxpayers, not just the saps remaining in Illinois.

The “progressive” politicians have virtually bankrupted the state, forcing thousands to flee, and have turned to the cruel exploitation of potheads as a sure-fire money-maker to stave off the final countdown to fiscal oblivion. But legalized dope means more wards of the state who need government help.

Now this is going national. “Once a politically dangerous subject,” notes Trevor Hughes of USA Today, “legal marijuana has become something of a de facto platform plank for the 2020 Democratic candidates: All support either legalizing or decriminalizing its use, and the differences lie in how far the candidates are willing to take it.”

Since 22.2 million people have used marijuana in the past month, this is fertile ground for votes. In a bid for votes, candidate Pete Buttigieg actually toured a “cannabis dispensary” in Las Vegas while commenting that he smoked dope a “handful of times a long time ago.”

President Trump, on the other hand, can just say no. He lost his brother to alcoholism and should consider speaking out against the Soros-funded marijuana craze before more lives are ruined and lost. His Surgeon General, Vice Adm. Jerome M. Adams, is already speaking out about the health risks of marijuana use. He needs the backing of his president.

Roger Morgan, author of Soros: The Drug Lord. Pricking the Bubble of American Supremacy, notes the elevated levels of mental illness, addiction, suicides, traffic deaths and the unseen mental and physical defects to babies and future generations from the use of marijuana and other mind-altering drugs.  He adds, “America can never be great again if a major percentage of its young people are brain damaged, mentally ill, addicted or dead.”​

This article was originally published at USASurvival.org. Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org

Written by Steve Huston

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, …it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us…”

Many of you are probably familiar with these opening lines from the classic Charles Dickens’ story A Tale of Two Cities. Well representing so many areas of our nation and our culture today, I choose to apply these opening words to the vast landscape—or virtual wasteland—of information and entertainment via technology that is only a click away via our devices.

Dickens writes about a time of extreme opposites without any in-betweens; our goal here is to recognize the extreme polarization these devices offer, yet aim at some guidelines that will, hopefully, land us somewhere in-between. That middle ground being a wise use of screens, as opposed to not using them at all or using them without restriction, having no concern for the inherent dangers they bring. While children are my main concern here, adults have also been taken captive by the alluring blue glow of their screens.

On one hand our digital devices offer “wisdom,” “Light, “the spring of hope,” and seemingly hold out “everything before us.” After all, one can read our newsletter, listen to our broadcasts, and receive our emails or those of other ministries on their favorite screen. I often “join” a congregation in Pennsylvania on Sundays, to be encouraged by great messaging. I use screens for research and occasionally to study God’s Word with online resources; what a terrific tool our screens can be.

On the other hand, digital devices also epitomize “foolishness,” “Darkness,” “the winter of despair,” and a great wasteland of “nothing before us.” We seem compelled to waste vast amounts of time with them. Males and females of all ages post or view photos or movies that range from immodest to pornographic; multitudes go from being entertained to becoming addicted; what should be used for good becomes a tool for evil as our baser side is unleashed. We have written about the dangers of hiding behind screens, neither being seen nor seeing, as we respond to others or mention them on social media. After all, who is to see, know, or care? Well, God sees; God knows; and God definitely cares about our smartphone use.

Regardless of how our children are using their smartphones, the amount of time they are on them is an issue in itself. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) reports that nine- and ten-year-old children who spend more than two hours in front of a screen each day score lower on thinking and language tests—the average “tween” spends up to six hours a day on their screens.

Bloomberg reports that “the scans of children who reported daily screen usage of more than seven hours showed premature thinning of the brain cortex, the outermost layer that processes information from the physical world.”

There are studies that show a relation between smartphone use by children and sleep deprivation and poor attention span—two-thirds of children take their devices to bed with them; some even laying their phones on their pillow for fear of missing a text.

Digital addiction is a very real and growing problem.The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation introduces their 2010 study on “Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds,” in part: “Eight- to eighteen-year-olds spend more time with media than in any other activity besides (maybe) sleeping—an average of more than 7½ hours a day, seven days a week…”

In a recent USA Today article we read that over 200 million mostly obsessed people are playing an online game called “Fortnite.” Some of these players are engaging in battle during school instead of paying attention to their teachers. Digital addiction is becoming more commonplace and most parents are at a loss of how to handle it. Other sources warn that victims of digital addiction can experience “destructive dependence, extreme change of personality, isolation, and physical signs during withdrawal.”

Research shows that teens who spend five or more hours per day on their devices are 71 percent more likely to have one risk factor for suicide—regardless of what they are viewing. Half an hour to one hour a day seems to be the ideal for teen mental health in terms of electronic devices. “Kids who use their phones for at least three hours a day are much more likely to be suicidal.” (Businessinsider.com)

None of the above should surprise us; especially considering that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs raised their kids mostly tech free. For that matter, most Silicon Valley parents are strict about technology use—shouldn’t that raise red flags? Shouldn’t that encourage us to set some very definite limits?

Setting limits is very important; but we must also model those limits. Here are some general guidelines to start; more to come at a later date.

Keep certain times and places “screen-free.”  For starters, at mealtimes we should focus on one another instead of our phones. Intentionally set aside device free “family time,” where you can play games, talk, or work on projects together. There are some families that put their cell phones in a basket upon entering their home to intentionally be present with their family. As for places, bedrooms should definitely be off limits and any zone you choose to allow devices should be public and always available for anyone else to view.

As you set limits, help them to understand that there are dangers associated with smartphone use.

As Christians we need to keep in mind that in all we do—including smartphone and other device usage—we are to glorify God and do in the name of Jesus. And let’s not forget Paul’s admonition in I Corinthians 6:12. “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.”

This article was originally published at AmericanDecency.org

An April 13, 2018 USA Today op-ed titled “Make an End-of-life plan or Lose your Money and Choices in your Dying Days” by Hattie Bryant begins with the statement “End-of-life care can bankrupt your family and rob you of choices. End the denial about dying. Make a plan in case you end up seriously ill and frail.” (Emphasis added)

Ms. Bryant is very upfront about using the economic argument about aging and the enormous toll it can take financially and personally on the family as well as medical costs. She states that “in 2011, Medicare spent $554 billion and 28%, or about $170 billion, on patients’ last six months of life. After $170 billion is spent, those patients are still dead.”

Her solution is a new kind of economic advance directive she developed (and is selling as a book titled “I’ll Have It My Way: Taking Control of End-of-Life Decisions“ ) “that deals with how you want your funds spent when you are seriously ill or frail.” (All emphasis added)

SHOULD WE HAVE A “DUTY TO DIE”?

Back in 1984, Governor Richard Lamm of Colorado found himself in the middle of a firestorm of outrage when, as the New York Times reported, “Governor Lamm Asserts Elderly, If Very Ill, Have a ‘Duty to Die”.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

“Elderly people who are terminally ill have a ”duty to die and get out of the way” instead of trying to prolong their lives by artificial means, Gov. Richard D. Lamm of Colorado said Tuesday.

People who die without having life artificially extended are similar to ”leaves falling off a tree and forming humus for the other plants to grow up,” the Governor told a meeting of the Colorado Health Lawyers Association at St. Joseph’s Hospital.

”You’ve got a duty to die and get out of the way,” said the 48-year-old Governor. ”Let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life.”

This philosophy was echoed in 2014 by one of the architects of Obamacare, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, when he wrote “Why I Hope to Die at 75-An argument that society and families—and you—will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly” for The Atlantic Magazine.

At age 57 at the time, Dr. Emanuel states that while death is a loss, there “is a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long is also a loss” that “renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived. It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world. It transforms how people experience us, relate to us, and, most important, remember us. We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic.” (Emphasis added)

He states that he will stop trying to prolong his own life by age 75.

CONCLUSION

Helping to care for many terminally ill or seriously disabled relatives, friends and patients of all ages for many decades both professionally and personally, I have a different perspective.

We are all born dependent on others for care and many of us need at least some help from others at the end of our lives. This can be hard at times-as even parents of newborns will attest-but the rewards are great both for the helper and the person being helped.

I remember when my mother with Alzheimer’s and terminal thyroid cancer was dying in 1988. It wasn’t the most convenient time for us, to say the least. I was a suddenly single parent with three young children and financially struggling.  My mother no longer recognized me but, as I told a friend, the most important issue was that I recognized her.  As a family, we did what was medically reasonable for my mother to help her without either prolonging or hastening her dying.

Taking care of my mother was a wonderful, if occasionally difficult, experience and I am grateful that we were able to keep her at home almost to the very end.

The final result was that my mother was kept  safe, comfortable and loved. Her funeral was truly a celebration of her life and my children learned an important lesson about the circle of life and taking care of each other. We still talk fondly about their time helping with grandma, even after 30 years.

When I made out my own advance directive, I made sure that it was as protective as possible against a hastened death. I don’t fear death. I do fear the bioethicists  and others who use economics and fear to push especially older people into prematurely signing away their rights to even basic care and what this does to our society.

This article was originally published at NancyValko.com

Life is so precious, and the right to life recognized as a “natural” or God-given right, so much so that it was codified in our 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.

Note that the “right to life” is given preeminence: without life no other right is necessary. And “unalienable” further emphasizes the untouchable nature of that right: mankind was gifted life by its Creator — the Lord God Almighty — and no man or government can take that right away except in the case of a proven capital crime.

Indeed, within each man and woman is the longing to live as well and as long as possible on this earth, in spite of hardship or physical pain. Even terminal patients, given adequate pain-relieving drugs, don’t wish to hasten death, but to live every moment to the fullest.

Joni Eareckson Tada, paralyzed and a quadriplegic since a diving accident in 1967, speaks to the issue of disability versus death following the release of the awful movie, Me Before You:

In light of the fact that California’s new physician-assisted suicide law goes into effect tomorrow (Thursday, June 9), following closely on the heels of the newly-released film, Me Before You, I wanted to sound an alarm about this egregious legislation and the glamorization of it.

In the movie, the quadriplegic says to his loved one, “I don’t want you to miss all the things someone else can give you.” Instead, he took away everything she wanted from him – his love and the essence of who he was – when he decided to end his life. Not only does this movie glamorize assisted suicide; it conveys the distinct impression that marriage to someone with quadriplegia is too hard, too demanding and sorely lacks the joys of typical marriage.

Regardless of whether or not in the context of a marriage, the taking of one’s own life or enabling a loved one with a disability to do so is never the answer. All life is created in the image of God and worth our greatest efforts to preserve and protect, and He alone is the one who should order the length of our days.

Some will assert that pain is an adequate reason for euthanasia, and yet, pain specialists state that properly administered drugs can provide at least good relief in 97% of all cases.

The final reason people may consider suicide is depression. And yet, depression can be alleviated via properly prescribed medicines and/or sound counseling. Thus suicide is a permanent “solution” to a temporary situation or mindset.

Scripture admonishes us to choose life:

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live. (Deuteronomy 30:19)

So, with all the advances in pain meds and availability of rock solid counseling, why is the teen suicide rate soaring?

In a USA Today article, “Teen suicide is soaring. Do spotty mental health and addiction treatment share blame?” authors Jayne O’Donnell and Anne Saker write:

The suicide rate for white children and teens between 10 and 17 was up 70% between 2006 and 2016, the latest data analysis available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although black children and teens kill themselves less often than white youth do, the rate of increase was higher — 77%.

A study of pediatric hospitals released last May found admissions of patients ages 5 to 17 for suicidal thoughts and actions more than doubled from 2008 to 2015. The group at highest risk for suicide are white males between 14 and 21.

Experts and teens cite myriad reasons, including spotty mental health screening, poor access to mental health services and resistance among young men and people of color to admit they have a problem and seek care.

In other words, the experts have no idea.

And yet, for decades the “experts” have been telling students in government schools that they are the by-product of mere chance.

Author Frank Peretti sums up the abysmally depressing instruction:

Kids, welcome to Biology 101. We’re going to learn lots of fun things in this class. We’re going to learn how…we’re going to cut up frogs and we’re going to pick flowers. We’re going to learn about pistils and stamens and all kinds of fun things.

But the first thing you need to know, boys and girls, above all else is that YOU are an ACCIDENT!

You have absolutely no reason for being here! There is no meaning, no purpose to your life!

You are nothing but a meaningless conglomeration of molecules that came together purely by chance billions and billions of years ago.

All the dust and the gas in the galaxy floated around for who knows how long and they bumped into each other and said, “I know! Let’s be organic! So they became organic. And they became little gooey, slimy things, you know, swimming around in the primordial soup.

And they finally grew little feet and they crawled up on the land and they grew fur and feathers and became higher forms of life. And they finally became a monkey and the monkey developed into an ape, and then the ape decided to shave. So he shaved and became what you are today.

From goo to you by way of the zoo!

Add to that thoroughly gloomy “naturalist” teaching the Pew chronicled “Nones on the Rise” and you have a recipe for mental and spiritual utter despondency.

Pew Research reported:

The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.

In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).

. . .

The growth in the number of religiously unaffiliated Americans – sometimes called the rise of the “nones” – is largely driven by generational replacement, the gradual supplanting of older generations by newer ones.

You may have heard Mainstream Media touting that “religion is dying.” But that’s not the story at all. Rather, affiliation in mainline Protestant and Catholic denominations is dying.

So we have several generations of youth taught from the earliest grades that they are nothing more than the result of a cosmic accident in school and receiving zero countermanding instruction in the home or in church.

That is a recipe for depression.

Add to that the disdain for life itself demonstrated by Planned Parenthood and every pro-abort in America, the implication being you’re an accident of nature, and if you in any way inconvenience your parents (who are also, by the way, just accidents of nature), then they will happily kill you before you’re born in the most painful way imaginable. And they may even allow Planned Parenthood to sell your poor little, mangled body parts for research to save other lives.

That, by the way, is a total enigma: why bother to do research to save lives of people who are an accident of nature and somehow, by random chance, managed to escape the abortionist’s butchery and were actually born!

The real question should not be “Why the high teen suicide rate?” but rather, “Why aren’t more teens taking their lives given an education and society that tells them they are an accident, that life means nothing, and that there is no hope after this life on earth!”

King David wrote:

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. (Psalm 139:14)

Which brings us back full circle to our Declaration of Independence, written by the Founders who believed and were informed by the Bible. Those Founders knew what King David knew — that the Creator of the universe designed and breathed life into each person, that life is worth living because of the hope we have in God.

Again we look to the uplifting words of David:

Why, my soul, are you downcast?
Why so disturbed within me?
Put your hope in God,
for I will yet praise him,
my Savior and my God. (Psalm 42:11)

That is the hope we must share with the youth, and other generations of America. That is the remedy for the epidemic of suicide and depression.

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

“Progressives” and even some so-called “moderate” Republicans are trying to diminish the import of allowing biological males and females to access restrooms, locker rooms, and even private clubs reserved for the opposite sex. Those who promote practices and policies that mandate sexual integration of heretofore single-sex facilities hope to blind the fearful masses to the larger issues and devastating cultural implications of the ultimate goal of sexual subversives: the eradication of all public recognition and accommodation of sexual differentiation.

A recent USA Today article provides yet more evidence that we are hurtling pell-mell toward the culmination of the cultural revolt against nature, commonsense, and decency that the blind Left covets. The article reports on an 8-year-old girl who masquerades as boy and has been told she cannot remain in the Cub Scouts because, well, she’s objectively a girl:

From the moment he joined, 8-year-old Joe Maldonado eagerly looked forward to camping trips and science projects as a member of the Cub Scouts. But his expectations were dashed after his mother said she received a phone call from a scouting official who told her that Joe would no longer be allowed to participate because he was born a girl.

Kristie Maldonado said she was stunned because her son had been a member of Cub Scout Pack 87 in Secaucus for about a month, and his transgender status had not been a secret. But some parents complained…even though her son had been living as a boy for more than a year and was accepted as a boy at school.

…

The Boy Scouts did not respond to questions about whether they would accept a transgender girl whose birth certificate indicates she is male. They also did not respond when asked whether they would accept a transgender boy whose gender status on a birth certificate was changed from female to male.

…

Some people have questioned his gender identity before, [“Joes”] said, adding that it “got so annoying” having to tell people over and over that he is a boy. He said he was “disappointed” that he can no longer be a Cub Scout but would not want to go back without receiving an apology.

“How dare they judge me?” he said, adding of his gender identity: “I don’t have to explain it. It’s the way I’m born.”

First, a “transgender boy” is in reality a girl. “Joe” is not a “he.” Using incorrect pronouns is not a compassionate way to address this girl’s mistaken notion that she is boy trapped in a girl’s body or that she can become a boy through rhetoric, dress, and elaborate chemical and surgical interventions.

Second, birth certificates identify an objective condition—that is, sex—that stubbornly persists whether or not humans undergo chemical and surgical alterations. Birth certificates do not assign or determine “gender” as currently redefined. And birth certificates should be prohibited by law from being altered. The government has no business engaging in fraud.

It is Leftists who redefined “gender” to denote “socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women” rather than denote biological sex. In light of this Leftist redefinition, it makes no sense to have birth certificates identify the “socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women” of newborns.

Third, identifying someone’s sex does not constitute illicit judging. And holding the view that it is immoral and unhealthy to reject one’s sex does not constitute illicit judging (clearly “Joe” has been well-tutored in Leftist language and ideology). The Boys Scouts is a private club for boys. Therefore, requiring that those seeking membership in the Boy Scouts be, in reality, objectively male no more constitutes illicit judging than does requiring those seeking membership in the Mensa Society be, in reality, geniuses. Whether or not they “identify” as geniuses is irrelevant.

The USA Today article shared this troubling information from Justin Wilson, the executive director of Scouts for Equality, a homosexual advocacy organization:

[Wilson] knows of at least two transgender boys who are Cub Scouts about the same age as Joe, one in a southern state that he did not name and the other in New York. He said he did not want to be more specific because of concerns that the national organization might take steps against them. The use of birth certificates to determine gender identity, he said, would be “a new, unfair arbitrary standard” for membership.

Wilson is right that asking for birth certificates would be a new practice for membership in the Boy Scouts. Historically, there has never been a need to ask parents to provide birth certificates because parents weren’t disguising their children in order to help them pass as the opposite sex.

On everything else, Wilson was wrong:

1. As mentioned earlier, no one uses birth certificates to “determine gender identity.” Birth certificates are used to identify sex.

2. Enforcing policies that require Boy Scouts to be objectively male does not constitute taking steps “against” girls who are pretending to be boys.

3. Concealing violations of Boy Scout practices that restrict membership to boys is a serious ethical violation of the trust of parents.

4. It is neither “unfair” nor “arbitrary” to expect Boy Scouts to be boys. In fact, expecting all members of the Boy Scouts to be boys is the very antithesis of unfair and arbitrary. For the Left to assert that only some girls may become Boy Scouts—that is, those girls who wish they were boys—is unfair and arbitrary. Why restrict girls from joining the Boy Scouts just because they don’t experience gender dysphoria? After all, they didn’t choose to be “cisgender.” Wouldn’t limiting membership in the Boy Scouts to boys and girls with gender dysphoria thereby excluding “cisgender girls” constitute discrimination based on “gender identity”?

And this conundrum leads us to the place where sexual anarchists want society to go—the place where we, because of our shameful cowardice, are allowing ourselves to be led: the land of mandatory co-ed everything and language rules to efface sexual differentiation.

Inevitable end game of “trans”-activism

The Left claims that separations based on sex are equivalent to separations based on race, arguing that there is as little difference between biological males and females as there is between blacks and whites. Outgoing Attorney General Loretta Lynch described the practice of requiring separate facilities for blacks and whites as based on a “distinction without a difference,” implying that the difference between males and females is similarly insubstantial. This statement reveals a profound ignorance.

Blacks and whites are distinct by virtue of their skin color, which is, indeed, a distinction without a difference. But men and women are substantively and significantly different. Even homosexuals implicitly admit this truism when they claim they are romantically and erotically attracted only to persons of their same sex. Males and females are so different in fact that a gender-dysphoric girl is insisting that she join the Boy Scouts instead of the Girl Scouts. If the difference between boys and girls constitutes a “distinction without a difference”—like the difference between blacks and whites—then why must a gender-dysphoric girl join a club for boys only? Why isn’t her refusal to join the Girl Scouts tantamount to a white person refusing to share a restrooms with blacks?

If we accept the fanciful Leftist idea that there is no more difference between girls and boys than there is between blacks and whites, then how can we maintain any single-sex restrooms, locker rooms, and private clubs? Logically must we not allow all men, boys, girls, and women to use the same showers and join the same clubs? After all, blacks and whites do.

And this is where accepting science-denying Leftist assumptions about biological sex, “gender,” “gender identity,” and gender dysphoria buttressed by pseudo-science research will lead.

Dubious social science

Before everyone succumbs to the 21^st Century certitude of professional mental health alchemists, wizards, and shamans, let’s not forget how often once influential ideas in the field of psychology have been debunked (e.g., Freudian theories, “recovered memory syndrome”).

A study appearing in Science Magazine in August, 2015 reveals how woefully unreliable psychological research is. The authors of the study titled “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science” explained that “We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available,” and found that only “39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result.”

Liberal Slate Magazine recently exposed just one study  in which researchers tried to replicate an influential earlier study on what is called “ego depletion”—a study on human willpower that has been cited over 3,000 times:

A paper now in press, and due to publish next month in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, describes a massive effort to reproduce the main effect that underlies this work [on ego depletion]. Comprising more than 2,000 subjects tested at two-dozen different labs on several continents, the study found exactly nothing. A zero-effect for ego depletion: No sign that the human will works as it’s been described, or that these hundreds of studies amount to very much at all.

Michael Inzlicht, researcher at the University of Toronto and co-author of the study that attempted to replicate the ego-depletion study, writes on his blog about the dire implications for social psychology (and I would add for culture) that result from bad research:

Our problems are not small and they will not be remedied by small fixes. Our problems are systemic and they are at the core of how we conduct our science….I’m in a dark place. I feel like the ground is moving from underneath me and I no longer know what is real and what is not….During my dark moments, I feel like social psychology needs a redo, a fresh start….Our problems are real and they run deep….What is not helping is the lack of acknowledgement about the severity of our problems. What is not helping is a reluctance to dig into our past and ask what needs revisiting.

Time is nigh to reckon with our past. Our future just might depend on it.

One final note about the relationship of science, social science, or pseudo-science as it pertains to volitional human behavior: Though science may be able to provide some information about the cause of feelings or desires, it can tell us nothing about the morality of actions that may be motivated by such feelings or desires. For example, science may be able to demonstrate that biological factors contribute to aggressive feelings, but such information tells us nothing about the morality of aggressive acts.

Similarly, science may one day demonstrate that biochemical factors contribute to the desire to be the opposite sex or the delusion that one is the opposite sex, but such research would tell us precisely nothing about the morality of cross-dressing, administering puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones, or surgically mutilating healthy body parts. We already know that the fall has affected not only our hearts, minds, and wills but also our bodies, which explains the presence of, for example, brain and endocrine disorders. It is no more moral for those with Gender Identity Disorder to have healthy breasts or testes amputated in the service of a futile quest to become the opposite sex than it is for “amputee-wannabes” (i.e., those with Body Integrity Identity Disorder) to have healthy arms or legs amputated. The causes of their disordered desires do not render their bodily mutilations moral.

Conclusion

It is not bigoted or hateful to recognize that sex is different from “gender identity” (i.e., subjective feelings about one’s sex). Even Leftists agree with that. It is not bigoted or hateful to say that biological sex is profoundly meaningful and is, in fact, the source of feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy when engaged in intimate activities. It is not bigoted or hateful to assert that in private spaces feelings about one’s sex should be subordinated to objective biological sex. Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts are for boys—not for girls who feel like boys, or girls who wish they were boys, or girls who falsely believe they are boys.

Practices and policies that permit biological females to use facilities or participate in activities limited to biological males teach all children the lie that physical embodiment as male or female is of less significance than feelings about one’s sex. It also teaches all children that in order to be compassionate, inclusive, and just, they must relinquish their privacy.

If biological sex is, in reality, more important than one’s feelings about one’s sex and is essential to what it means to be human, facilitating sex-rejection is deeply destructive.

Listen to this article HERE.

Year-End Challenge

As you may know, IFI has a year-end matching challenge to raise $110,000. That’s right, a small group of IFI supporters are providing a $55,000 matching challenge to help support IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.

Please consider helping us reach this goal!  Your donation will help us stand strong in 2017!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 876
Tinley Park, Illinois 60477