Protect Children & Taxpayers From Radical Gender Ideology

On May 15, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) introduced two bills to the U.S. Senate—one that would prohibit federal funds from supporting gender transition procedures, and another that would altogether ban such procedures on minors.

These bills are so radical in light of contemporary opinion, yet so simple and straightforward in achieving their goals, that when I read their respective texts, I was awed that the U.S. Senate still contains the type of statesman who will stand for the truth in this way.

And Marshall isn’t alone; co-sponsoring one or both of these bills are U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Mike Braun (R-IN), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Steve Daines (R-MT), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Mike Lee (R-UT), Markwayne Mulllin (R-OK), James Risch (R-ID), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Roger Wicker (R-MS), and Josh Hawley (R-MO).

On the one hand, the End Taxpayer Funding of Gender Experimentation Act of 2023 (S. 1595) would prohibit several of the current ways that federal dollars can fund gender transition procedures. Under this bill’s provisions, federal funds may not directly fund gender transition therapy or surgery. Neither may they be shuttled into health care plans that include such practices in their coverage.

Further still, no health care service that is furnished by a physician employed by the federal government or even furnished in a facility owned by the federal government may provide gender transition procedures.

The bill does clarify that non-federal health care providers would be free to provide such treatment, and that customers would still be free to seek out separate (non-federal) plans that cover such treatment should they want it. Yet, the federal government must stay out of it.

On the other hand, the Protecting Children From Experimentation Act of 2023 (S. 1597) takes it a step further when dealing with minors; it would ban gender transition procedures for minors in almost all cases—excepting rare medical situations. Under its provisions, any physical or mental healthcare professional would be fined (or face up to five years in prison) for performing or even referring a gender transition procedure.

The bill makes sure to clarify that minors may not be prosecuted for receiving such treatment; however, recipients of the treatment are allowed to bring civil action for relief against the physician who performed it.

Marshall and his colleagues’ stand for the truth deserves three whole-hearted cheers. They are daring to suggest that physicians performing supposedly “essential” gender transition care should be imprisoned! While it seems harsh, it is not any less harsh than the “care” they are purporting to provide—nothing less than a 21st-century version of the self-mutilation practiced in pagan rites for millennia, an abomination which defiles God’s created order bestowed to each one of us since our conception.

Now, it’s one thing to sit back and cheer for U.S. Senators who are willing to take stands like this, drawing clear lines between black and white in a world filled with multitudinous shades of grey. But politics is not a spectator sport. “The people” are more than just the hypothetical but fictitious “12th man” on the football team. “The people” send the players onto the field, tell them how to play, and recall them when they don’t do their jobs right.

Many of Marshall’s colleagues are assuredly shocked at his audacious proposal. But it’s audacious when viewed from a worldview that presupposes society has already settled the question—or at least the toleration—of gender transition procedures.

Thankfully, U.S. Representative Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) has introduced the same legislation in the U.S. House (H.R. 3328 and H.R. 3329), which has 40 co-sponsors, including U.S. Representatives Mike Bost and Mary Miller from southern Illinois.

If we all called or emailed our representatives right now and let them know that we—their very own constituents—agree with Marshall’s stand for the truth, the excuses to dismiss his position as audacious and radical, will start disappearing. Let them know that you sent them on to the field to represent you, and you will not tolerate government support of lies.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth and your local U.S. Representative to ask them to support or even co-sponsor these two bills. Impressionable children should not be making life-altering, body-mutilating decisions about their sexuality and adults should not be pushing woke sexual anarchy either.

U.S. Representative LaMalfa rightly points out in his press release,

let kids be kids and wait until adulthood to make a choice they likely wish they hadn’t as a child. Adults and the medical field shouldn’t be allowed to coerce this “woke” agenda onto them when they should be their protectors. Adults need to realize that their coercion is abuse, and should face appropriate consequences.

The problem of child sexual abuse in the United States is far greater than most people realize. Sixty million American adults are sexual abuse survivors. Twenty percent of us. Thirty-nine million of the victims were abused before turning twelve years old. Because most of them will never tell anyone about their experiences, the scope of the problem remains largely a hidden evil.

One in four girls and one in six boys are sexually abused before reaching eighteen.

Why is so little being done to stop it?

During the 70’s and early 80’s I worked for the Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission, eventually becoming the Chief Investigator. More commonly known as the Illinois Crime Investigating Commission, the agency was created to attack organized crime and official misconduct. Because of that focus, we were directed to investigate the rising instances of child pornography and child prostitution that we were seeing throughout the country.

It was well known that vice activities were dominated by organized crime. So it stood to reason that the outfit was responsible for sexually exploiting growing numbers of children as well. That theory proved to be untrue.

Ninety percent of abuse victims are abused by someone they know. Sixty percent are abused by a family member. Almost twelve percent of students who graduate from high school are victims of educator sexual misconduct sometime between kindergarten and twelfth grade. The mob was not behind it.

The sexual exploitation of children turned out to be something beyond what anybody thought.

Our investigation uncovered a range of horrors none of our investigators ever expected and it led to an almost eight-year investigation into every aspect of the issue—the victims, the families, the perpetrators, the social service agencies, the health workers, the police and detectives, the prosecutors, the entire judicial system. It was all a mess. Nothing worked smoothly. There was little or no cooperation or coordination between and among agencies. Every facet of the system was riddled with incompetence and indifference.

There is no easy solution.

We contacted every police department in the state and interviewed scores of detectives about sex abuse cases they handled. What became very clear immediately was most detectives did not like being assigned these cases. A downstate detective told me one time he heard over the radio the call come in about a child being sexually abused. Immediately, he said, he hid under his desk until the supervisor assigned it to someone else.

The cases were depressing, even more so than homicides. And because the conviction rates were so poor and because they sometimes involved prominent people in the community, they were seen as career killers. Today, these cases generally are handled by specialists. But there are not enough of them.

As a way to improve the overall system, we drafted the initial enabling legislation for what has now become known as the Child Advocacy Centers. There were none back then. Today there are over 800 around the country and, for a time, they were performing a coordinating function that was very effective. Based on indicators I’ve seen recently, I am not sure that is true anymore. In Illinois they seemed to have lost touch with the original intended purpose. I have seen a similar erosion of purpose in other states as well.

During the 70’s, prosecutors were reluctant to take on cases involving child sexual abuse because convictions were hard to get. That remains the situation today. Prosecutors often take plea deals that don’t involve the perpetrator admitting to a sex offense. Or, they agree to a less serious offense that has less jail time.

Social workers for DCFS and contract agencies remain ill equipped to handle any serious cases as they remain hamstrung by rules that prevent adequate triaging of the caseload. Often, then and now, they will spend more time on easy cases where parents and caretakers are cooperative, than they will on much more serious cases where the parents actively resist and evade the caseworkers.

You would think that at least the health care workers would be universally committed to the protection of children. Not always. They generally are pretty good at reporting suspected cases of abuse, at least physical abuse. But underage girls who are pregnant sometimes are not reported as victims of abuse, despite the prima facia evidence that the child was sexually abused. Children legally cannot give consent.

In some cases, health workers help arrange, or provide, abortions without notifying the police, DCFS or any other official.

This is also sometimes true when there is evidence boys have been sexually abused, and the boys refuse to cooperate.

No report.

When a case overcomes all the hurdles, and the prosecutor secures a conviction, there is no guarantee justice will be served. Too often, judges minimize the sentencing.

Recently, a teacher in Michigan engaged in sexual intercourse repeatedly over several months with her 13-year-old student. She was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree and third-degree criminal sexual conduct, for which she could have received life imprisonment. She was sentenced to 3 to 20 years. Period. She probably will be out much earlier. She’s not the only one. It’s the same as it was 50 years ago.

In the 70’s, one of our first cases involved a man who was sexually abusing a girl for three years, starting when she was 6. We got him cold on child pornography charges and he gave a full confession. He was sentenced to five years.

Pathetic.

Those immersed in the system know all this is true, but for one reason or another are not inclined to do anything about it. Those outside the system are largely oblivious, and very often want to remain ignorant.

This leaves our next generation condemned to evade the predators as best they can largely on their own. The consequences? More and more children will become victims of child sexual abuse. In thirty years maybe there will be 90 million adult survivors. By then, twenty five percent of us?

Unless we step up and start doing something much more effective, the numbers are going to keep growing.

(Next time, some things that are working and what you can do.)

Amid a major power grab by the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) seeking to further empower the global agency, lawmakers and leaders across the United States are stepping up efforts to protect self-government, national sovereignty and the rights of all Americans. In fact, many in Congress and beyond say it is time for the U.S. government to defund and even withdraw from the WHO once again.

Last week, governments from around the world sent delegates to the annual World Health Assembly in Geneva. They will be meeting until May 30. The main objective of this year’s confab is to radically extend the organization’s power over healthcare and citizens under the guise of improving “health” and fighting future disease outbreaks in a coordinated global fashion. Critics say it is a dangerous plan to centralize power in a corrupt agency controlled by Beijing.

There are two primary methods of attack. First, using COVID and possible future pandemics as a pretext, the WHO is pushing for a new “International Pandemic Accord.” The scheme was being called a treaty until it became obvious to all involved it would never get two-thirds support in the U.S. Senate, as required for ratification of all treaties. The WHO hopes to have the details worked out by next year’s World Health Assembly.

The second prong in the attack involves amendments to the so-called International Health Regulations, or IHR. Because these are considered mere changes to an existing treaty, globalists at the WHO and in the Biden administration — not to mention the Communist Party of China lurking behind the scenes — also see this as a vehicle for empowering the global “health” apparatus without pesky interference from Congress.

But critics are working on ways to fight back. The Sovereignty Coalition, formed to fight the WHO assault on self-government, brings together a broad alliance of conservative leaders, organizations, and lawmakers united in the effort to preserve and restore national sovereignty. In fact, the coalition is calling for an American exit from the WHO entirely.

Signatories include hundreds of America’s most prominent conservative leaders as well as doctors and other medical professionals. Leading organizations in the medical freedom movement and the broader conservative movement also signed on including Daily Clout, Eagle Forum, Liberty Counsel Action, Tea Party Patriots Action, Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, ConservativeHQ, Act for America, and more.

Last week around 20 lawmakers and leaders held a press conference outside Capitol Hill calling for an end to the WHO’s scheming. Illinois’ own U.S. Representative Mary Miller, a Republican, was among those speaking out. “Our hard-earned taxpayer dollars should not support a globalist organization that is controlled by China, undermines our national sovereignty, and threatens our rights,” Rep. Miller said, echoing the concerns of many of her colleagues and constituents.

“President Trump made the right decision to cut all funding and participation in this organization, and it is foolish for the Biden Administration to place trust in an institution that repeated China’s deceptive narratives regarding the origins of the pandemic in Wuhan,” she added. “I stand proudly with my colleagues in calling for the United States to withdraw from the corrupt WHO. In Congress, I will always work to protect our nation’s sovereignty, preserve our rights and freedoms, and ensure the responsible use of taxpayer dollars.”

Other lawmakers who spoke at the press conference and denounced the WHO and Biden’s support for the power grab included U.S. Representatives Ralph Norman (SC-05), Ronny Jackson (TX-13), Chris Smith (NJ-04), Harriet Hageman (WY), Tim Burchett (TN-02), Brian Babin (TX-36), Andy Biggs (AZ-05) (sponsor of H.R. 79), Kevin Hern (OK-01), Thomas Tiffany (WI-07), Chip Roy (TX-21), Eli Crane (AZ-02),  Paul Gosar (AZ-09),  Lauren Boebert (CO-03), Eric Burlison (MO-07),  Anna Paulina Luna (FL-13) Rep. Dan Bishop (NC-08), Glenn Grothman (WI-06), Clay Higgins (LA-03), and more.

Watch the press conference here:

Sovereignty Coalition co-founders Reggie LittleJohn and Frank Gaffney were there, too. In a statement posted on their website, the leaders and the signatories noted that the WHO was effectively under CCP control and was being used to advance a “post-Constitutional-America and ‘global governance’ dominated by the Party.” “The CCP’s hegemonic ambitions have no place for a powerful United States of America, human freedom or personal sovereignty,” the group explained. The WHO is also doing the bidding of Big Pharma and billionaire population-control zealot Bill Gates, one of the outfits top financiers, the coalition said.

Speaking at the start of the WHO’s annual meeting, former communist terrorist and current WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus insisted that the organization needed even more power. “We cannot simply carry on as we did before,” said Ghebreyesus, who was installed with strongarm tactics by the CCP. “The pandemic accord that member states are now negotiating must be a historic agreement to make a paradigm shift in global health security, recognizing that our fates are interwoven.”

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, former leader of the Socialist International global alliance of communist and socialist political parties, echoed the call for a stronger globalist regime. “I hope the current negotiations on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response result in a strong multilateral approach that saves lives,” said Guterres, who has also been a vocal advocate of the World Economic Forum-led “Great Reset” being opposed by countless millions around the world.

Blasting the WHO’s response to COVID, the Sovereignty Coalition said it was “outrageous” that the Biden administration was scheming to hand over even more power—without even Senate approval. “These accords would effectively repose in Dr. Tedros the authority unilaterally to dictate what constitutes an actual or potential Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) and to order how affected nations must respond,” the coalition said in a statement, noting that these authorities would purport to allow America’s enemies to deprive Americans of their rights.

In light of all the problems with the schemes being negotiated as well as the systemic issues plaguing WHO, the Sovereignty Coalition said enough was enough. “The United States must end its membership in, cease funding of and submitting to the World Health Organization before the WHO is granted the authority effectively to compel compliance with the public health dictates of Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus or any other unelected, unaccountable international bureaucrat,” the alliance declared.

At the state level, efforts to stop the WHO are gaining steam as well. A new bill in the South Carolina legislature, H.4246, would nullify the power grab by banning any state or local cooperation with the effort. “This is the rightful remedy,” SC Representative Josiah Magnuson told me, blasting the fact that Biden was not even planning to seek the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate as required by the Constitution of all treaties. “If this does go into effect, we’re going to have the framework here to resist.”

Former President Donald Trump removed the U.S. government from the WHO, but Joe Biden promptly rejoined when taking power. Republicans in the U.S. House, though, have the opportunity to defund the global body in the upcoming budget. With outrage surrounding the WHO and its leadership growing rapidly amid the attempted power grab, it may be tough for elected officials in the United States to continue supporting it. The next year will be critical in that battle.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative to encourage them to support legislative actions to withdrawal the U.S. from the The World Health Organization (WHO). This U.N. agency is effectively controlled by Communist Chinese Party and other subversive globalist interests, but it is actively seeking greater, totalitarian control over its member nations. This is a serious threat to our national sovereignty and our individual liberty.

Ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 79, the “WHO Withdrawal Act,” H.R. 343, the “No Taxpayer Funding for the World Health Organization Act,” and S. 444, the “No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act,” to stop the implementation and/or enforcement of the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty.

On May 2, the town of Danville, Illinois became what some have called a “sanctuary city for the unborn.” After Planned Parenthood staff announced plans to open an abortion clinic in the town, the city council reacted by narrowly passing an ordinance (8-7), citing a section of federal law that forbids the mailing of abortion paraphernalia.

Danville’s recent ordinance does not quite make it a “sanctuary city”—at least not in the same sense that Seattle is a “sanctuary” for illegal immigrants on the run from federal immigration officials. Danville’s ordinance is actually a reverse “sanctuary” provision that enforces federal authority in the township, in the face of state law. And herein lies the convoluted back-and-forth of legal argumentation, as both the pro-life and the pro-choice movements have exposited the law to support their side.

The pro-life ordinance makes a clear-cut appeal to the U.S. Constitution, citing Article VI which makes all federal laws the “supreme Law of the Land.” The ordinance further references a section of federal law, U.S.C. §§ 1461–62, which prohibits using the mail system to deliver abortion paraphernalia. Thus, the ordinance explains, since 1) the Danville City Council is “bound by oath to support and defend the Constitution,” 2) the Constitution makes federal law the supreme law of the land, and 3) federal law prohibits mailing abortifacients, therefore Danville is upholding the Constitution in passing this restriction.

The pro-abortion-rights side is not backing down easily, however. According to Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Danville’s new rule violates Illinois state law. The state’s Reproductive Health Act prohibits local governments from restricting abortion rights tighter than the state law does, so he claims that Danville simply lacks the legal authority to pass such a regulation.

This article is not intended to endorse or refute either legal argument. Either way it turns out in court, the pro-life movement can still learn a valuable lesson from the Danville controversy.

Roe didn’t get rid of abortion—it made the national discussion that much more tangled.

Pro-lifers cheered as Dobbs struck down the blanket national ruling which said “the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.” Immediately, state governors and legislators went to work to pass pro-life or pro-abortion laws, depending on the state.

I’m sure some of us, cheering for Dobbs, were tempted to view ourselves as the reasonable states-rights defenders, in opposition to those big, bad authoritarian federal mandates and rulings. But being “pro-states-rights” really only truly works for the pro-life cause when the state you live in is already pro-life. In states like Illinois, being “pro-states-rights” actually seems to be more like being “pro-choice,” at least in the Danville case.

So states’ rights is not our savior, if it ever was. Don’t get me wrong—it’s a worthy principle, enshrined in our nation’s founding, and one that works well for our side in many places, especially right when the Dobbs ruling came down and various states started banning abortion right and left. But those states only did so because they were already pro-life. The cultural and political groundwork was already in place. In states where these prerequisites are not already in place, “states rights” is just a further justification to keep and expand the abortion restrictions they believe in.

Dobbs was not the end of the pro-life fight. It just moved the battle to a different battlefield, one that is currently focused more on individual skirmishes in particular states than mass movements of troops on the national stage. The dispute over Danville’s ordinance shows us much more clearly how important the local cultural battle is. Overturning U.S. Supreme Court precedent is a major step, but it was only the first step.

Influencing culture and educating the populace who will in turn vote for next year’s lawmakers is the way to ensure the breakthrough we won with Dobbs will actually bring pro-life wins to our states’ laws.

When it comes to the abortion debate, our local neighborhoods are now the new Supreme Court chamber.

Things are truly upside-down. Christians, who have been scorned forever as weak and milk-toast, are suddenly public enemy number one. And while Christianity has been the source of thousands of American charities and the inspiration for hospitals, medical care, and education worldwide, it is now labeled by the Left as hateful and bigoted. Then we see destructive anarchist groups like Antifa and BLM glorified in the Media and academia as forces for good! How could this be?

The Left has had an advantage over conservatives in shaping the public’s perception of things for many years because they have controlled the narrative. They have presented themselves as caring and compassionate, sympathetic to the poor and the disadvantaged. And, because of the Christian ideal of giving people the benefit of the doubt, we have accepted that maybe they were truly concerned for those who are less advantaged.

However, because Leftists now have so much power, they no longer feel the need to hide their true objective. They seek political dominance and the elimination of Christianity in all public forums and will do whatever is necessary to accomplish those goals. They have portrayed themselves as selfless champions of the downtrodden, and conservatives as greedy. However, we must no longer tolerate that narrative. It is a lie, and their duplicity is clear to all whose eyes are open.

Leftists have done well at creating the perception that they are not in politics for money, thus masking their greed. But make no mistake! They are as greedy as one can be. However, if you have enough power, you do not need personal wealth because you control other peoples’ money.

With the power to tax, politicians can live as if they are wealthy by legally confiscating and spending other people’s money. Creating wealth is difficult and requires certain skills and discipline. But if you are not talented in this area and are lazy and unethical, politics provides you with a vehicle to achieve your dreams without the hard work and risk that capital creation requires.

What we have seen over the last 60 years is the Left demonizing those who create wealth in order to justify confiscating it.

At the same time, the leftists, who disdain wealth creators, have convinced the public that they (the Leftists) are better and more selfless stewards of that wealth. Thus, we have people who are incapable of creating wealth, taking it from those who do and spending it according to their own desires and accruing to themselves more power in the process. It is interesting how many politicians have become multimillionaires even as they denounce those who created the wealth in the first place.

We are now governed by people who have no idea how to create or wisely manage wealth, and whose real motivation is that of controlling the rest of us. They are the embodiment of greed. They are concerned primarily for themselves and serve others only as a means of accruing power and wealth to themselves.

While one would expect that they would alienate most everyone because of their greed, they have managed to gain a substantial following among three groups who sustain them in power: those who are content to take a handout and produce nothing, those who are genuinely needy and have become dependent upon the politicians, and a third group who are equally cynical and see an opportunity to accrue some personal power and prestige by supporting the Leftists and their sordid process.

Sadly, the Media, whose primary responsibility is to hold public figures accountable, cover for their corruption. There is no way to describe it other than that of non-producers stealing and controlling what the producers have created. They are truly parasitic.

This brings us to the very important question: what does the Bible say about all this?  As “pilgrims” here are we to be compliant and silent? Compassion and generosity are certainly Christian values! But as an aside, let us put to rest the nostrum that Leftism is compassionate. It decidedly is not! After decades of the federal government spending literally trillions of dollars on numerous supposedly compassionate programs, the poor remain poor and the powerless remain powerless.

If these programs are as bad as they appear, we should turn our attention to their impact on society in general and on those who contribute. Is it moral to confiscate resources from those who create and earn it only to squander it on ineffective programs? I believe the evidence suggests that the exorbitant taxation upon the middle and upper classes in America over the last 50 years has been both immoral and counterproductive.

So, what does the Bible teach about such things? One need not be a Bible scholar to know that stealing is wrong. Therefore, without having good reason the government should not take from one citizen to give to another. Having the government’s imprimatur does not change the reality that transferring wealth from earners to non-earners without Constitutional authority is theft.  The right to personal property guaranteed in the Constitution is not simply to provide for an individual’s greed, but rather to protect his life.

Unprotected property rights place every citizen’s life at risk. If the government can take, at will, one’s wealth, it can starve that person to death. And the fact that even after trillions of dollars have been transferred, primarily from earners to non-earners, there are still many millions in poverty underscores the need to rethink our “compassionate” welfare system. As constructed, it is a colossal failure.

Foundational to the issue is the fact that government is incapable of ministering compassion. It must fall to other social institutions and organizations, such as churches, to resolve the poverty problem.

The Bible notes that “wisdom is justified of her children,” (Luke 7:35), meaning that the wisdom of an act is revealed by its consequences; and Jesus stated that “a tree is known by its fruit,” (Luke 6:44). Therefore, if a particular activity repeatedly produces bad results one can assume the act is foolish and ought to be discontinued. One’s intentions mean nothing in this.

While the Left burnishes their “compassion badges,” boasting of how much they care, virtually everything they have done for over fifty years has produced nothing but heartache, misery, poverty and increased public unrest. It cannot be ignored that as Christianity has been pushed to the fringes of society there have been tragic increases in crime, depression, suicide, divorce, sexual perversion, and confusion.

Setting aside for the moment those who cannot provide for themselves, the Bible is very clear that anyone who refuses to work should not eat. Witness the sorry tales of so many lottery winners to understand that we do not do well with unearned wealth! Therefore, government should do nothing to facilitate a comfortable life for those unwilling to work. Sources, secular and sacred, confirm that generally, those who are diligent, disciplined, and work hard do not go hungry.

Scriptures tell us that God gives rain to those who love Him and those who don’t. He is gracious! This does not mean that His provision will always be abundant. We should all be grateful to him for his care and provision for us whether it be modest or abundant. It may be that one of our biggest errors, culturally, is that we have raised a generation of Americans who believe they are owed a rich and comfortable existence even though they have done little or nothing productive. To give it to them would be immoral and destructive!

Colonial Jamestown, VA scholar, Martha McCartney, wrote in Encyclopedia Virginia, (Dec 7, 2020) that Captain John Smith, early President of the colony, would have nothing of slothfulness, declaring that

“the labours of thirtie or fortie honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintaine a hundred and fiftie idle loyterers.”

Whatever his motives, it is quite clear that his stubbornness preserved lives. Very few died under his leadership while a large number perished under the leadership of his successor who was not so strict. As McCartney noted,

“Regardless of whether Smith recognized this fact, he found that even small amounts of work improved both the material life and health of the colonists.”

These realities are so obvious that no politician can honestly deny them. To create a public welfare system where productivity and hard work are discouraged by the government’s confiscation of wealth from producers to distribute it to those who are unwilling to work is simply immoral and will, if not corrected, contribute to the collapse of the entire economy. It is impossible for our politicians not to understand this, therefore, we need no longer accept the notion that they are well-intentioned but misguided.

No, they are simply greedy, either for money or power, or both. They are snakes in the grass who ought to be exposed for what they are. Their programs have produced virtually nothing of value and instead an abundance of suffering.

In seeking a biblical perspective, the faithful Christian should consider two primary principles: First is his responsibility to the poor. Numerous biblical texts in both Old and New Testaments give God’s answer. On one hand, Christ Himself noted that, “the poor you have with you always.” This is merely a sad acknowledgement of reality. People are poor for a variety of reasons, many of which are intractable.

This must not be construed as cause for doing nothing. Many Christians and others have seen the impossibility of eliminating poverty as cause for discouragement and apathy.

However, Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan teaches us that while we may not be able to do much about poverty across the globe, we can do something about people in need who cross our paths regularly. Therefore, the Christian ought to be known for wise generosity: encouraging work for those able, and compassionate giving to those who cannot provide for themselves.

Which leads to the second principle: Just as it is wrong to ignore genuine need, it is wrong to indulge the indolent. The Scriptures teach that if a man refuses to work, he should not be given food. It is for his own betterment that others refuse to support him in his slothful choices. He will gain more than a meal when he learns the value of hard work.

America is at a fork in the road. Will we return to the imperfections, yet relative goodness of a society guided by the principles and truths of Christianity and the Bible, or adopt Marxism and fall back into the despotism and misery that has otherwise characterized human history from its beginnings?

The choice seems pretty clear to me!

It’s incredibly awkward when you’re in an important worldview conversation with a friend, and you don’t know what to say. You can’t figure out the right facts or convincing words to combat their argument, and worse, the conversation ends with you questioning your own beliefs.

First Peter 3:15 says “…always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” Though this verse is speaking about sharing the gospel, the principle – always being prepared to make a defense with gentleness and respect – applies to anything we believe.

The Sanctity of Life is one area in which it’s especially important to be prepared. This video about the abortion pill from Live Action is a good starting place to build practical knowledge for your next conversation. Check it out and share the video!

Schools throughout Illinois have implemented rules that require students to be allowed to use the restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity, but it is not clear exactly how many schools. So a trans boy, who is really a girl, is allowed to use the boys’ restroom and locker room. While a trans girl, who is really a boy, is allowed to use the girls’ facilities. The requirement is based on a guidance document from the Illinois State Board of Education.

The guidance document claims that the Illinois Human Rights Act requires schools to allow trans students to use the facilities based on their claimed identity.  The document points out the law specifically states “transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming students have the right to use a school’s physical facilities consistent with their gender identity.” The general public is largely unaware of this legislation.

There are a couple of problems with this law, not the least of which is that there is no such thing as gender identity. That term is based on a fraudulent theory proposed in the 50’s by John Money. He theorized that our gender identity could be different than our biological sex, that it was independent and fluid. It remained a theory until he was given the opportunity to test it out on the Reimer twins. One twin, Bruce, had his penis catastrophically damaged by a horribly botched circumcision as an infant. His entire penis was burned off due to medical incompetence. The parents refused the procedure for the other twin.

Sometime later, the parents reached out to Dr. John Money, a psychologist from Johns Hopkins University, who had put forward the theory that any child born a boy could be raised as a girl, or vice versa. Nurture, not nature, determined a child’s gender identity, he claimed, and he convinced the parents that Bruce could have a normal life as a girl. Money enthusiastically took on the case and treated the boys for several years. He began writing articles about the case, underscoring how well the children were doing, pointing out that Bruce, being raised as a girl, had taken to her identity very well. The success of his experiment received international attention.

The real story was that the experiment was an utter failure. You can read about the case in a book by John Colapinto, “As Nature Made Him.” The bottom line is instead of proving gender identity was real, it proved the opposite. Money never acknowledged the failure and continued to pretend gender identity was real. One of the twins died of a drug overdose and Bruce committed suicide. I would say that was a failure, spectacularly so.

Despite this failure being made public in 2000, the psychological community ignored it. The idea that the theory of gender identity was real took on a life of its own and continued to gain adherents even with no evidence to support it and with two dead boys from the study that was used to confirm the theory. Who needs evidence, right?

Our Illinois State Board of Education and many of our local schools just roll over and conform to the fraud that is gender identity.

Some students at Waterloo High School in Waterloo, Illinois rebelled against this invasion of their privacy. Earlier this year, high school principal, Lori Costello, wife of Illinois Department of Agriculture Director, Jerry Costello II, allowed trans students to use the restroom of their choice.  According to Ryan Cunningham of the nonprofit organization, “Speak for Students,” several students at the school identify as trans, boys and girls. Students told him that one of the trans boys (a girl) regularly uses the boys restroom. She reportedly stands at the urinal and uses a funnel which she washes out in the common sink. At least one student claimed that was not true. Whether it is or not, many of the boys were uncomfortable using the restroom with girls being allowed free access to the facility.

The students were told if they felt uncomfortable, they should use the nurse’s restroom which is for one person at a time. On March 17^th approximately 150 students lined up to use it. The administration didn’t like that at all.

Brian Charron, the Superintendent of CUSD #5, issued instructions that any student in line who was late to class was to be marked tardy. If the protest continued, he directed that the students be disciplined. Reportedly, some students were. Cunningham said he helped several parents appeal and succeeded in having the discipline withdrawn. He is not sure what happened with the other students. However, to his knowledge the directive stands.

I sent a message to Charron asking the status, but so far have received no response.

The Biden Administration last summer proposed revisions to Title IX regulations which would redefine the meaning of the term “sex” to include gender identity. During the public comment stage over 240,000 comments were received. It is not known whether these comments will affect the final regulations. We will see in May, when the revised regulations are released publicly.

If the rules change the definition of sex to include gender identity, it is unlikely they will withstand a challenge which most certainly will be filed immediately. In West Virginia v. EPA the U.S. Supreme Court decided last summer that:

“Precedent teaches that there are ‘extraordinary cases’ in which the ‘history and the breadth of the authority that [the agency] has asserted,’ and the ‘economic and political significance’ of that assertion, provide a ‘reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress’ meant to confer such authority.”

In the case of redefining sex in Title IX to mean “gender identity,” Congress could not possibly have intended to give the Department of Education the power to redefine a foundational characteristic of all humanity since the dawn of time. This is exactly the same reasoning that the Illinois Human Rights Act is flawed.

Another case, in November last year, in Neese v. Becerra, a U.S. District court ruled that sex did not equal sexual orientation or gender identity. And in December, the 11^th Circuit Appellate Court ruled in Adams v. St. Johns County School Board that a school board policy requiring students to use the bathroom that corresponded to their biological sex did not violate Title IX.

Since the idea of “gender identity” emanated from the deranged mind of John Money, and has no science that supports the alleged identities, the most prudent course for all school boards would be to reject the guidance on this issue from the Illinois State Board of Education.

One stumbling block for school boards could be the lawyers they are selecting to advise them. It seems many lawyers are advising boards to cave to the guidance. Apparently, they are too timid to challenge the misguided Illinois Human Rights Act. That is a mistake. While it may save the boards money in the short term, in the long run these misguided rules are going to destroy the schools.

School boards, when choosing lawyers to advise them, would be better off if they followed J.P. Morgan’s philosophy. Reportedly, his position was: “I don’t hire a lawyer to tell me what I can’t do, I hire a lawyer to tell me how to do what I want to do.”

In this case school boards need lawyers who can tell them how to implement policies that align with common sense. Obviously, Waterloo High School does not have such a lawyer. It’s a quality that appears to be lacking in the school leadership and in the district administration as well.

Time to clean house.

Get your children & grandchildren OUT of government schools as soon as possible!

I was, for a short time during college, a volunteer fireman, and my responsibility was to operate the equipment while more experienced firemen entered the burning building.  Following a fire at one house, another student who had gone inside told me how he stood in the smoke-filled kitchen spraying water at the flames to no avail.  It wasn’t until he realized that he was facing a mirrored wall and that the flames were actually behind him that he turned and was able to extinguish the fire.  As long as he was sending water in the wrong direction the fire continued unabated.

With every mass shooting in America there is a repetition of the same demands from the Left to take “substantive” action against guns and gun owners to stop such tragedies.  These demands go nowhere because sensible people understand that, like spraying water at a mirror instead of the fire, such actions will not and cannot make a difference.

You will never solve a problem so long as you are aiming at the wrong target.  We are not dealing with people who are under the control of God or law.  In other words, good people do not kill each other and do not need gun control!  As Paul wrote in I Timothy 1:9, the law is made “for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners. . . for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers. . . . “

Tragically, murder has been with us from the very beginning of human history.  I expect we are all familiar with Cain’s killing of Abel.  And in the approximately six thousand years since, things have not improved.  Cain did not need a firearm to kill his brother, and the absence of such weapons has never been an obstacle to those who are bent on killing someone.

So, is there a “Christian” view of guns?  Does the Bible give us any indication of what God might say about such things?  A former president mocked traditional Americans for relying on their “God and guns.”  Clearly, Leftists delight in throwing Scripture texts or generalities into our faces thinking they can embarrass us into yielding to their demands.

But their efforts are based upon twisted understandings of the Bible, passages taken out of context, or simply ignoring important relevant texts.  Superficially, one might think that God would frown on the existence and use of guns in general, but to conclude this would be to overlook a large body of Scripture.  And it is clear that the only people who would benefit from taking firearms from law abiding Americans would be criminals and tyrants.

A thorough examination of the subject would require writing a book, so the best we can do here is to hit a few high points.  God’s heart can be seen in the fact that the first environment He created for us was that of a garden, symbolizing both beauty and serenity.  It was mankind who introduced discord and violence to creation, and we learned immediately that God disapproved of that violence.

While allowing Cain to live following his killing of his brother, God, shortly thereafter (Gen. 9:6) instituted the death penalty for murder, declaring that murderers were to be executed.  Thus, God’s justice requires that violence be met with violence.

Interestingly, there is no evidence in Scripture for a wholesale surrender of peaceful people to violent people.  “Turning the other cheek,” which we read of in Matthew five applies in the context of Christ’s Kingdom (which was rejected then but will be established in the future) where God will take revenge for His people.  Therefore, if God approves of meeting violence with lethal force, if necessary, it only makes sense that guns are not forbidden by Him.

It is certainly applicable to the topic to consider that David, a “man after God’s own heart” used a high-velocity projectile (slingshot) to take out the giant, Goliath.  Modern studies suggest that a stone released from an ancient sling would have the approximate killing power of a  44 magnum!  David became the progenitor of the Davidic dynasty, from which Christ, the world’s future Ruler has come, and it was he who noted that God taught his “hands to make war.”

God is not anti-war when there is an evil, mortal enemy to fight.

Third, the Apostle Paul addressed the responsibility of a man to his family.  In I Timothy 5:8 he wrote that if a man does not provide the essentials for his family, “especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”  The idea that providing for one’s family includes food and a roof over their heads but not their protection against intruders is ludicrous.

Virtually whatever a man needs to keep his family safe is legitimate, and with the weapons available to criminals, one has no alternative but to be able to meet force with force, if need be.  This would include firearms.

Finally, the US Constitution provides in its Second Amendment a protection of the individual’s God given right to own firearms for the express purpose of protecting “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;” and only the naïve would say that this amendment provides merely for hunting.  Rather, its intention was for the citizen to protect himself and his family from a tyrannical government, which the colonists had just defeated in a bloody war.

It is precisely for this reason that Leftists beat the drum for more gun control.  The most significant obstacle to their achieving a strangle hold on the American public is the citizens’ right to “keep and bear arms.”

Therefore, all who love liberty and life and understand that these are God given rights, will not yield an inch in the battle for the Second Amendment.  What we must understand is the Left’s willingness to allow and even create suffering for the nation’s citizens in their quest for power.  They cynically believe that if enough innocent people die, eventually tender-hearted citizens will change their minds and allow the government to disarm the public.  Once the public is sufficiently disarmed, our chains will be forged and we will be subjugated, just as they are in China, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, and other socialist countries.

Do we understand that the Left has no interest in stopping these killings?  There are substantial things that could be done to reduce the killings without violating the Constitution, but the Left fabricates reasons to oppose them all.  We who are truly concerned about the deaths of innocent people struggle to accept the fact that Leftists, whether politicians or academics, don’t care!  Every week in cities like Chicago there are killings equivalent to a mass shooting, yet those in charge do nothing.

There are also over one hundred thousand drug related deaths annually in America, and the Left’s response is to make those drugs more available and curtail efforts to interdict the narcotics crossing the southern border.  Their utter lack of concern for these tragedies underscores the fact that Leftists, regardless of their rhetoric, do not care for America’s citizens, even the children.

What can be done?  The evidence is that training and arming teachers and other staff at every school would be one quick and effective improvement.  But you will get no encouragement from the Left in this.  And there are other available options we won’t get into here because I would like to go to the two most important and effective tools in the tool chest, both of which are hated by the Left.

First, reintroduce students to God and the Bible.  “We can’t have a state church,” you say.  Well, we already do, it’s called Humanism, its priests are teachers, and its cathedrals are the public schools.  But, even at that, the expression “separation of church and state” is seriously misunderstood.  Few Christians want a state church, but all desire to see the principles of righteousness that are sourced in Christianity taught to the Nation’s children.

There is a great difference between a “state church” and teaching morality and goodness to children.  Under the guise of “protecting” children from a state church Leftists have thrown out the principles that are essential to a healthy culture, good citizenry, and safe neighborhoods.

Leftists hate Christianity so virulently that they would rather have the chaos and death across the culture than to hear someone proclaim, “Thus saith the Lord!”  They deeply resent being told that lying, cheating, stealing, and adultery are sinful, but they have no problem declaring that traditional values are evil!

They claim that children are “damaged” by being told about God and their accountability to Him.  Apparently, having a sense of guilt (for which Christianity also provides relief) is worse to Leftists than dying of violence or a drug overdose!   Regardless, the issue is not whether somethings are good and some evil, but rather, who decides what is good and what is evil!

The Left went public with its war on God and the Bible in the 1960s, and that war has only escalated over time.  The horrific violence witnessed daily across America is just one consequence.  One could ask, “America, how is this war on God working out for you?”  The best thing America could do to encourage a God-consciousness in young people.

The second thing we must do, which is related to the creation of a cultural God-consciousness, is to reinvigorate the traditional family.  The chaotic culture we now have is clearly the opposite of a safe, stable culture that would not produce these mass shootings.  The single most important factor in a safe, stable culture is intact, traditional families.  This is indisputable.  Just as darkness cannot exist in the presence of light, chaos cannot exist in a stable society! Duh!  Only a brainwashed Leftist would seek to dispute this.  But it is in fact the very reason for the Leftists’ war against the family.

They understand that the public would never yield to their tyranny if we were experiencing a safe, stable, and prosperous culture.  Understand this: the violence, unrest, and destruction we have witnessed over the last several years are not the natural manifestations of a normal culture.  It has all been orchestrated to achieve a simple objective: the subjugation of the American people.

Opponents of liberty seek to shame those of us who love America’s freedoms with false narratives regarding love.  No, love is not tolerant toward those who would destroy that which is good and right.  A good man does not sit idly watching intruders victimize his family.  As long as predators exist, good men will protect those they love!

“Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,” is not merely a pleasant platitude.  It is the one most essential element for a peaceful, prosperous nation.  I again call on all Americans to repent and submit to the Holy, yet gracious Lord and God, Jesus Christ!

Sadly, so long as fallen mankind and tyrants run things here, weapons will be necessary to protect one’s life and liberties.  When Christ, the Prince of peace reigns, however, we will see such things come to an end and weapons will be repurposed into plows and pruning hooks!  Eden will be restored!

Will you be there?

America’s children are being targeted by sex predators. Their recruiters are already in our schools and libraries. These “transgender” people need your children as converts. Consider:

• Children returning from school carrying “gender unicorn lessons,” which teach strange ideas of sex and gender.
• Public libraries are conditioning your children through “drag queen readings” to get children familiar with these recruiters.
• Schools are hiding from parents that they’re giving puberty blocking drugs to their children.

The transgender people insist that they be allowed to access and recruit children, and that you accept them as being of their assumed sex – even in private places like separate-sex bathrooms. They claim, “trans rights are civil rights.”

If you oppose them, you’re charged with genocide- of mass murdering hordes of children. But, if you don’t oppose them, you’ll end up losing your rights as parents and all of the children will be prey to sexual and financial abuse. Read on to become aware of how the transgender agenda destroys parents’ oversight, age of consent, and causes bodily harm to their young victims.

Sexually flailing against God’s creation

People practicing homosexuality want to be accepted as normal by society. That is what the “love is love” campaign is all about. Likewise, people practicing transgender behaviors want us to affirm their choices. Why, then, do Christians actively oppose homosexuality and transgenderism? It’s not out of hate for these people, but because God hates these behaviors. Even if we wanted to affirm them, we couldn’t do that and also have a God-honoring society.

In Genesis, we read how God created everything, including Adam (a man) and Eve (a woman). God told Adam “from any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17, NASB). But Adam decided he didn’t trust God’s version of good and evil, and sought his own understanding. This was the sin of Adam– that he pursued his own version of right and wrong.

Homosexuality is a manifestation of Adam’s sin. God hates it because, at its root, it is rebellion against Him and rejecting His creation. They’ll have man-to-man, or woman-to-woman, sex and curse us if we tell them that this is wrong. An article from Got Questions calls it “shaking our fists at God.”

Homosexuality is not the cause of a society’s decline, but it is a symptom of it; it is the result of people making themselves the final authorities. Romans 1 gives the natural digression of a society that has chosen idolatry and sinful pleasure instead of obedience to God. The downward spiral begins with denying that God has absolute authority over His creation (Romans 1:21-23).

The result of a society’s rejection of God’s rule in their lives is that God gives “them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:24-25). Verses 26 and 27 say, “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” The phrase “God gave them over” means that, when we insist on shaking our fists at God, He finally lets us have the perversion we demand. And that is a judgment in itself. Homosexual behavior is the result of ignoring God and trying to create our own truth. When we defy God’s clear instruction, we reap the “due penalty” of our disobedience (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9; Revelation 21:8).

Transgenderism is a variant of homosexuality. The important difference between them is that a man or woman claims to be of the other sex – an assertion in defiance of the facts. It’s another claim of godhood, that someone can declare their own sex and it becomes true because they say so. We’re all supposed to chime in and affirm this claim, much like throwing a pinch of incense to Caesar. Frequently, but not always, transgender behavior also includes surgical removal of a person’s sex organs.

A key thing about transgenderism is how you can’t just ignore it. People are in your face about you acknowledging the sex assertion, and about you using “preferred pronouns.” Woe to you if you disagree with them. Walter Hudson, a state legislator from Minnesota, commented about this:

We used to take our differences a lot more seriously. But we eventually settled on a social contract rooted in classical liberalism, the notion that neighbors should be able to peacefully co-exist without demanding renunciation of sacred belief. The transgender community has not received that memo. Despite individual exceptions, the general rule among the dominant trans culture is an illiberal insistence upon affirmation. It’s not enough for them to believe that “transgender women are women.” You must believe it too. You must confess it with your mouth upon every social interaction. You must call a guy cosmetically altered to appear as a woman “she,” or you will be found guilty of heresy and summarily convicted in the court of public opinion. At the very least, your sentence will be social censure and condemnation. More likely, you will lose your job or face other grave consequences that hobble your capacity to live…

The dominant trans culture has successfully employed a repressive cultural strategy of social censure and unearned indignation to enforce a code of conduct that “affirms” their beliefs. Of course, it amounts to gaslighting. No one believes that the man cosmetically altered to appear as a woman has become a woman. But you’re expected to “affirm” that lie with every use of a “preferred pronoun” as an act of fealty and submission. It’s enforced with severe social censure for violations of trans decorum, which typically involves being treated as beneath contempt.

Christians aspire to proclaim the gospel, and to build a Christian society (Matt. 13:33, 28:18-20). America still has a strong Christian influence, and our standards of right and wrong are measured by what the Bible says. God hates homosexuality, in either form, and judges a society that approves of it (Gen. 19:15-26; Rom. 1:26-27). This means that building a Christian society includes opposing homosexuality and transgenderism.

Transgenderism brings unwelcome surprises

Are Christians being meanies, not letting an “oppressed minority” experience full acceptance into American society? No, we’re trying to protect our society from predators, who would use this acceptance to exploit and hurt children. After everything is said and done, this conflict is over recruiting children into transgenderism.

Consider the rage over a  Texas bill, which would ban sexual transition surgery on minors. And look at the concern about a Florida bill that, only modestly, regulates when transgender concepts could be taught in public schools. It certainly is about the children.

If America gives these advocates what they demand, if they convince us that it’s fair and just to yield to their claims, then look at the life-changing surprises awaiting us.

Surprise #1: Transgender education is already in American schools

Of the things a people can expect of society, perhaps protecting the vulnerable is its most important task. And children are its most vulnerable group, because they’re innocent of how the world might mistreat them. American society provides them special protection through concepts like “age of consent,” and by the understanding that their parents are their legal guardians. This has been consistently confirmed, most famously in the Wisconsin v. Yoder Supreme Court case:

The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.

However, teaching children about transgender behaviors has already been forced into public schools, without seeking parents’ consent and usually without notice. It’s done because  teachers believe that the students belong to them. In practice, teachers, administrators, and school boards act like they can they can do as they please with their students.

They approve, not merely permit, teaching transgenderism, and seek to indocrinate students even in kindergarten. They teach propaganda like “assigned sex at birth”and “gender unicorns.” They even seek to reach three-year-old children with these lessons! To evade parental oversight, they counsel children in secret, and deny what they’re doing.

Don’t be fooled in thinking that your “excellent school district” doesn’t do that stuff. They probably do already, for so much of their agenda is set by state bureaucracies. Remember what Ronald Reagan said: “Trust, but verify.”

Surprise #2: Transgender agenda overrules “age of consent”

The point of the “age of consent” is that the parents protect a child from making uninformed or immature decisions. The child increasingly learns how the world works, and his or her parents give increased personal control.

Young children know nothing about how “gender-affirming” therapy changes the body’s development. Even drug therapy has permanent consequences. If you stop taking the drugs the body doesn’t play “catch-up” for the years of missed development. No youth of nine or ten has the wisdom, or skepticism, to understand the implications of tampering with puberty.

Non-parental counselors are conflicted, having self-interests to not tell the youth of any potential problems. We used to call people like this “predators” and “child exploiters.” Yet transgender advocates demand that youth be allowed to make these decisions without parental approval. For example, the Minnesota Lt. Governor said, “when our children tell us who they are, it is our job as grown-ups to listen and to believe them,” she added. “That’s what it means to be a good parent.” Not true, because a good parent looks for the best interests of a child, and much of love means saying “no.”

Surprise #3: All ages of consent could be nullified

If a child can consent, without having parental approval, to body-altering procedures, even surgery, then the “age of consent” is nullified. Perhaps some advocate will then petition a judge that the sexual age of consent should also be nullified. A similar argument exists for removing the minimum age for entering into financial contracts. This results in many exploiters, and many hurt children.

Surprise #4: Parental oversight would effectively be abolished

In a transgender-affirming world, a child can ask for, and expect to get, body-altering treatments without parental permission. And the schools can effectively ignore the parents, teaching things and transitioning youth without their parents’ knowledge. After all of that, what is left of parental oversight?

In Minnesota, the enmity towards parents is so strong that the legislature passed a law, making the state a sanctuary for children who want to run away and get transgender treatment there. And the state will fight the parents when they ask for the return of their child. By the way, isn’t it a crime for an adult to help a child make that journey across state lines?

Let’s take this farther. If parental oversight isn’t respected, then what purpose is served by a family? Why should society, or the law, honor it? In 1920 the socialists in Soviet Russia asked this question, and decided that abolishing the family was a good idea. That turned out horribly, and families were again honored – but only after many lives were ruined.

Affirming transgender behavior opens a big box of trouble

As you see, we can’t simply say “let them have their way” and we all live happily together. A decision to normalize, to affirm, transgender behavior, in the scope they want it for, will soon lead to widespread child exploitation and neutering of the protective family environment. This would be a major change in American society. Decisions like this shouldn’t be made by manipulating some judges, or through bureaucracy. It is a major deal, and demands public debate.

Opposing transgender agenda is not genocide

We’ve seen how submitting to transgender demands would cause much harm to American children. A Christian culture ought to prevent this harm by rejecting their assertions, and not changing society to suit these demands. At minimum this means:

• A man might claim to be a woman, or a woman a man. But that doesn’t grant any rights or privileges other than those of the person’s biological sex.
• A person doesn’t have any legal right to require others to recognize him or her as their claimed, non-biological, sex.
• Civil rights laws don’t favor someone’s pretending to his or her non-biological sex.

However, transgender activists claim that opposing them amounts to genocide. Here’s the advocacy site, OutFront Magazine, claiming that denying transitioning drugs or surgery amounts to a crime against humanity:

While, of course, this convention, passed by the Third United Nations General Assembly in 1948, does not specifically mention sexual orientation, gender identity, romantic orientation, etcetera, the objects of the oppression of the queer community, including the trans community, such communities should obviously be included under such a definition.

The sentiment of the opening clause is that, in short, genocide is the purposeful destruction of an oppressed societal out-group on the basis that they are that group, and such unequivocally includes the entirety of the queer community.

Regarding the transgender community specifically, many enacted policies, or policies attempting to be enacted, in the modern-day meet such a definition. The aforementioned policies of banning transgender healthcare for trans youths are potentially the most egregious instances of violation of this definition of genocide.

Puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy, the topics of these policies, have been shown to drastically reduce the horrifically high suicide rate of transgender youths, saving lives. To block trans youth from such a treatment manufactures a higher suicide rate and thus manufacture more suicides, more deaths within the transgender community, specifically amongst youth.

That is, it’s genocide because they wish it were so. But they are preying on our youth, and blaming us when their targets despair. It seems far more likely that the children are hanging out with the wrong adults, “groomers” if you will. And according to the articles I provided earlier, our public school teachers and employees seem to be at the forefront of transgender recruitment.

On the Dr. Phil show, a transgender man (biological female) named Reece explains her decision process. Note that she thinks that using transitioning drugs at age eight is a really fine and normal thing. And if you should deny these drugs, she thinks that this would be genocide.

One of Dr. Phil’s guests not only defended trans medical procedures for minors but claimed that it is absolutely vital for their mental health.

“Being able to start my transition at 11 was just so overwhelming and scary, but exciting, and I feel grateful. Say that a trans person came out at 8, and they had to wait till they were 18 to start hormone replacement therapy and not even able to get puberty blockers so their body has to fully now go through puberty,” Reece, a trans man, said. “That now makes transitioning 10 times more hard and traumatizing.”

Reece went on to say that legal regulations to prevent these procedures being done to minors is akin to mass-murder.

“It’s extremely important for trans youth to be able to transition at puberty, I think, without that, all of these kids who know who they are deep down inside would never get the opportunity to live their childhood as their truth. And I think that’s just horrendous. And I think it’s just transgender genocide. If I was not able to transition at the age I was, I would not have made it to 18. I do not think the government should be denying trans health care. It’s life-saving healthcare,” Reece said.

The guest went on to contradict themselves when describing hesitation to actually go through with a double mastectomy at a young age and deciding to “wait till I’m older.”

Reece then said, “I didn’t want to wait. I was eligible at 15. I went to get it at 15 and I just was too young to go through with it at that age for myself personally, but someone who has a bigger chest who is also that age would definitely need it if they felt like they did and I think they should be able to get it.”

These two articles underline that the transgender community wants your children. After all, it’s hard to assume the appearance of the other sex after you already have adult genitals. So they evangelize the children early, before puberty, especially before they’ve got the wisdom to resist.

In a more general sense, stopping this agenda will indeed shut down the transgender community. Without getting easy converts, it won’t be much fun for them to do their role playing. But it’s not genocide. By that logic, you may as well claim that enforcing traffic laws is “genocide against speeders.” So saying “genocide” is just using a scary word. Why not also call us “fascists” and “racists,” to get full value out of using scary sounding, but no longer meaningful, words.

Don’t be afraid to eliminate child abuse, and child maiming, by opposing the transgender agenda. But this agenda would be implemented not through legislation, but by top politicians changing bureaucratic rules, such as the words in the Civil Rights Act. We must be loud and persistent in getting our politicians to behave, because we really do care.

For the last century, the United States of America has engaged in a great secular experiment: what if we pretended that God was irrelevant? What if we pretended that we could make laws that ignored God? Could the ‘public square’ be a place of free, rational discourse—free from claims about the implications of Christian theism on public life? This pretended neutrality has served to reveal one thing: that the line between secularism and paganism is dangerously thin. I’ll revisit that point later, but let’s first take a brief diversion into the hazy world of Cannabis and Constitutionalism.

The International Church of Cannabis (yes, you read that right) is in the midst of a battle with the city of Denver, Colorado, over what the ‘church’ claims to be its First Amendment rights to religious freedom. The battle began after the ‘church’ was ordered to remove an eleven-foot, bright pink statue that it erected on their property, a street corner in a residential area.

Striking, isn’t it? A religious group dedicated to smoking weed is appealing to the U.S. Constitution on the grounds of the First Amendment, an amendment designed to protect the Christian conscience. Now, without getting into debates about originalism versus living Constitutionalism, what does this tells us about the state of our nation? More than anything else, it indicates that the Constitution is no longer fit for the American people. Or perhaps it is more appropriate to put it the other way: the American people are no longer fit for the Constitution.

The Constitution has very little to say about God—it only mentions God indirectly, noting that the document was drafted ‘in the year of our Lord, 1787.’ While some might want to read this as a latent atheism in the Founders (or at least an etiolated deism), there is another way to explain the apparent lack of God. As John Adams famously said, “the Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people, and is wholly inadequate for any other.” That is to say, the Constitution presupposes widespread belief in God and the accompanying Christian social behaviors that stabilize a society.

Nevertheless, the lack of explicitly Christian language in the Constitution has been exploited as a ‘get out of morality free’ card by progressives for the last 150 years. And that’s just how we find the International Church of Cannabis appealing to their ‘Constitutionally-protected’ religious freedoms. Because our nation—Christians included—has gone along with the belief that the Constitution, and consequently all law, can exist and preserve social order without a Christian foundation, we now find ourselves confronted with open paganism.

Why is this the case? Why does a silent secularism end up manifesting itself as open paganism? Because nature abhors a vacuum. If there is a moral vacuum, something has to fill it. Man is homo adorans, he was created to worship something, so when God is stripped of his public relevance, the public will find other things to worship, like cannabis, or himself, or whatever that thing on the courthouse in New York is.

Secularism is never truly secular. There is always a god of the system. In a liberal democracy such as our own, the god is demos, the people. Just listen to any political pundit invoking Omniscient Polls and Almighty Consensus—such things are imbued with godlike characteristics, and everyone must fall down and worship before demos.

Christians must reclaim the public square, not ceding an inch to secularism. We must not buy into the notion that laws can be value-neutral. Law, morality, and social order have no rational basis other than the Triune God of Scripture.

It seems like common sense: parents of school-aged children should know (or at least be able to find out) what their kids are being taught, what kinds of content are being made available to them, and how school officials are using their students’ private data. Even a few decades ago, there would have been a consensus among parents, educators, and legislators that moms and dads, not the public school system, are the primary decision-makers and responsible parties in the lives of their kids. But in the modern, dystopian American educational system, involved parents are now considered a threat to the self-proclaimed experts tasked with teaching our kids.

In the old days, school was where students learned reading, writing, math, geography, history, science, music, and art. Generally, these topics were taught objectively, with teachers communicating the facts and inviting thoughtful engagement. As students were given the tools to think critically by applying logic and asking good questions, they could form their own stances and opinions, rather than having moral judgments presented to them, fully formed and beyond the point where they could be debated.

To be sure, many of us who were educated outside the home (myself included) would willingly say one or several of our teachers played an important role in helping us become who we are, but this happened largely in the context of relationships, not through curricula that teach a new, government-sanctioned orthodoxy on issues of sexuality, race, justice, and politics, to name a few.

Somewhere along the way, administrators and educators began believing they could and should usurp the God-given role of parents to morally shape children. In many cases, federal and state governments affirmed this perspective, pouring taxpayer dollars into agenda-driven programs and curricula. Sadly, many parents also gave their assent by handing their kids over for roughly 35 hours a week, allowing not just their intellect, but also their moral compass to be oriented by the state.

Mary Miller and her grandson Nathaniel.

That is, until the COVID-19 pandemic when many moms and dads found themselves sharing workspace with their students and overhearing what went on in their classrooms. Since then, the groundswell of pushback among concerned parents who are standing up to guard the hearts and minds of their kids has been both a shock to liberals and a rallying cry for conservatives. Parents are re-asserting their rightful place as the primary authority in their kids’ lives, and they’re not the only ones. Now members of Congress are putting on a full-court press, too.

U.S. Representative Mary Miller (R-Quincy) is a mom and grandmother from rural Illinois and Vice Chair of the U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee. With other conservative members of the U.S. House of Representatives, she is working to reset the boundary between parents’ rights and the responsibilities of the state. Miller is heavily involved in this multifaceted effort as a co-sponsor of a constitutional amendment (H.J.Res.38) introduced by U.S. Representative Debbie Lesko (AZ-08) affirming parents’ right to function as the final authority on their kids’ education. Miller also drafted two key provisions in the Parents Bill of Rights Act (H.R.5), which passed the U.S. House on March 24th by a vote of 213 to 208 (with 14 not voting).

Of this crucial piece of legislation, Miller said,

“I have strongly opposed every effort by radical elites in DC to bypass parents and push racist Critical Race Theory, perverted sex-ed curriculum, and dangerous transgender policies that harm our children in our schools. The Parents Bill of Rights Act includes two provisions I drafted to protect children’s privacy from Big Tech and affirm a parent’s right to opt their children out of taking surveys regarding sexual orientation, transgender ideology, and woke politics. Congress must pass The Parents Bill of Rights to empower parents and increase transparency in the classroom.”

Naturally, the Biden White House has already made a statement, describing this commonsense bill as putting “LGBTQI+ students at higher risk” and accusing supporters of “politicizing our children’s education.” The democrat-controlled U.S. Senate is not expected to take up the legislation, so as it stands, the Parents Bill of Rights Act will not go into effect. What it will do, however, and what U.S. House Republicans no doubt expect, is reveal to American parents exactly who is politicizing and poisoning the American educational system. It isn’t the lawmakers who are seeking to reduce government involvement in what is the purview of the family, but the radical, leftist activists who see American public schools as an obvious training ground for the next generation, who they wrongly believe belongs to them.

Parents across the nation are saying “no more,” and these legislative efforts on their behalf are just one sign that a sleeping giant has been awakened. There’s a popular t-shirt that says, “I don’t co-parent with the government,” and they are putting a face on the sentiment. From local school board meetings all the way to the U.S. Capitol, these conversations will continue, alerting more and more moms and dads to the agenda that has crept into classrooms, school nurse and counselor offices, libraries, locker rooms, and beyond. Once parents sense their kids are in danger, they won’t stop until they know they’re safe. It’s how good moms and dads are made, and it’s putting American schools on notice.

The controversy over transgenderism arose a few years ago seemingly out of nowhere. But when it did arise, it erupted like a cultural Mount St. Helens.

The transgender cause has not been part of the homosexual communities’ agenda until recently.

When Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen wrote their book, published in 1990, “After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90’s,” I do not recall they made any mention of the transgender issue. At that time, there were transvestites—men that dressed as women who were a recognized part of the community. They were still gay, saw themselves as men, and were still interested in men. And there were “butch” lesbians. Many dressed like men, but still saw themselves as women and were attracted to women. Such variety among homosexuals is not unusual.

While homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a mental illness in 1973, transgenderism was first categorized as a psychosexual disorder in 1980. In 1994, the classification was changed to gender identity disorder, and in 2013 it was changed to gender dysphoria. Today, gender dysphoria remains categorized as a mental illness.

The modern history of recognizing transgenderism as something different from homosexuality dates to the German doctor Magnus Hirschfeld, who founded the Institute for Sexual Research in Berlin in 1919. In 1930 he performed the first known sexual reassignment surgery. Before Hirschfeld, not much clearly is known about the issue. The history is murky, to say the least. There isn’t even much known about the Institute for Sexual Research either since the Institute was destroyed by the Nazis in 1933 and all the Institute’s books and records were burned. Hirschfeld was forced into exile and he died in France two years later.

The first American to become widely known after having undergone sexual reassignment surgery was Christine Jorgensen, born George William Jorgensen, Jr. Jorgensen served in the U.S. Army in Europe during WWII and while there learned of fledgling practice of sex reassignment surgeries. Throughout his life he had been troubled by his “lack of male development,” but we don’t know what he meant by that. In any case, after returning from the war he began taking estrogen and in 1952 he received permission from doctors in Copenhagen to undergo a series of surgeries there.

A letter he later wrote to his parents announcing that he now was Christine somehow was leaked to the press. The story was widely circulated, and Christine Jorgensen became a household name. Jorgensen remained somewhat of a celebrity for the rest of his life—as an oddity, not as a norm. He died in San Clemente, CA in 1989 at the age of 62.

Until after 2010, there has been very little public awareness about the transgender issue. However, since 2006, a recent survey showed, there has been a 4,000% increase in youths seeking transgender treatment. Additionally, prior the to 2000’s a large majority  of those seeking transgender treatment were males seeking to transition to female. Today that has reversed. Now 70% of those seeking transgender care are female wanting to become male. During the early years the general public was completely unaware of the changes. Now most are aware of many issues involving transgenders’—biological males using female restrooms and locker rooms, biological males on female sports teams, hormone and surgical treatments, etc.—but few have greater than a superficial understanding.

Perhaps the first inkling that the general public got of the sexuality changes going on behind the scenes was in February, 2014, when the Amazon Original show, “Transparent,” (about a parent, Morton, coming out transwoman, Maura) was released to critical acclaim. The show centered on the characters exploring their sexuality and their reactions to others. In no way could the show be considered a real-life attempt to understand what a real-life mental illness is, gender dysphoria. It was an emotionally manipulative series aimed at normalizing transgenderism.

The awakening of the general public began to accelerate when the Obama Administration issued instructions to U.S. Schools that Title IX applied to trans girls, requiring schools to allow biological boys to play on girls’ teams and to use girls’ facilities. While the Trump Administration later rescinded those rules, the schools already were full speed ahead implementing the Obama Administration’s plan. The Biden Administration is accelerating the agenda even faster.

The pandemic and parents becoming more aware of what their children are being taught, the press coverage of the 4000% increase in the number of trans youths, Abigail Shrier’s 2020 bestselling book, “Irreversible Damage,” all have coalesced to make the issue seem like a freight train, thundering down a mountain, after losing its brakes.

To many of us the last five years has seemed out of control, that the world has lost it’s collective mind on this issue. Who could possibly think that when a child as young as four or five, or maybe even younger, says they were born in the wrong body we should accept that as true? That is insane. But we are told its settled science. Moreover, courts and schools and government at all levels have steamrolled any opposition.

Most people must believe this insane idea, right? It turns out, no.

Last month, Summit Ministries of Manitou Springs, CO, released the results of a poll it commissioned. McLaughlin and Associates conducted the poll of 1,000 likely voters from all over the country. It was a stratified random sample that covered all ages, parties, races, voting behavior, sex, ideology, education, population density, and region of the country. One of the questions that was asked was: “What is your reaction to efforts to expose children to the transgender movement using things like drag shows, school curriculum, and social media.” To my surprise, of the 92% that answered the question, 71% of the participants were concerned, while 29% were not upset or concerned. Of the 71%, 41% described themselves as very concerned or angry.

The other question that was asked was “Do you believe that pharmaceutical companies and doctors who promote puberty blockers and cross sex hormones for underage children seeking gender transition should be legally liable for any harmful side effects that arise?” There were 826 of the 1000 participants that answered that question, 83%. Of those, again 71% answered yes, while 29% replied, no.

It is encouraging that at least 71% of us have some common sense. So why are we electing legislators and hiring people for government jobs who don’t? That is a genuine mystery.

When it comes to truth, though, who believes what makes no difference. Just because the whole world believes a lie, that does not make it true. The challenge for us today is to find the closest proximity to truth that we can on this issue. Some experts believe that chemically and surgically mutilating healthy sex organs is the best course of action. Other experts are repelled by the thought, instead favoring talk therapy.

My research points to more experts being repelled than being in favor of the mutilating chemical and surgical interventions. In these circumstances, doesn’t the solution seem clear? Shouldn’t treatment be that which causes the least harm, while allowing the experts to continue researching and debating the issue?

It seems to me that would be the best practice for decision making, as well as the least divisive. Let’s end the eruption and toxic hostility . . . on this issue, at least.

In 2023, it seems the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is less and less concerned with hiding its espionage and attempts to destabilize the United States. With the early February sighting of a confirmed Chinese surveillance balloon, which drifted across the U.S. for a week until it was shot down off the coast of South Carolina, perhaps more Americans are aware of the threat China poses to United States security. But while the eyes of many have been trained on the skies, the communist nation has been at work right under our feet.

In Illinois and across the United States, China has for years been buying up farmland. Official figures from the start of 2020 show China controlling about 192,000 acres of agricultural land in the U.S., which may not seem like much, but that number continues to grow at an alarming rate.

On a larger scale, according to a report from the U.S. Congressional Research Service, “foreign persons and entities held an interest in 40.8 million acres of U.S. agricultural land in 2021, accounting for 3.1% of total privately owned land.” Investigate Midwest, an independent, nonprofit newsroom found that “the USDA largely relies on volunteer reporting,” and that a database of foreign land ownership revealed “3.1 million acres without an owner listed.” It seems the USDA’s system is no system at all, and the consequences could be far-reaching.

One conservative U.S. Representative from Illinois, Mary Miller (IL-15) is taking a stand, having introduced in February H.R. 840, the “Saving American Farms from Adversaries Act.” Rep. Miller and her husband are farmers from Oakland, Illinois, and she serves on the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture, making her a knowledgeable voice on this crucial piece of legislation.

According to the text of the bill, in Illinois alone, “Foreign companies and individuals have purchased 853,813 acres of agricultural land…worth approximately $6.3 billion.” So, what is the danger? In an article from Breitbart, Rep. Miller is quoted as saying, “As a farmer, I know that foreign land purchases are especially an issue in rural America where the Chinese Communist Party is attempting to buy land in our country to gain strategic leverage over the United States and our food supply.” Concerning current federal policies that actually encourage the foreign purchase of American lands, U.S. Representative Dan Newhouse (R-WA) said, “The current trend in the U.S. is leading us toward the creation of a Chinese-owned agricultural land monopoly.”

From an economic perspective, when outsiders with massive budgets purchase land and farms, they bid up prices, artificially driving costs up for American farmers. Chinese purchases of homes and apartments are having the same effect on rural families, increasing the cost of renting, and putting home or farm ownership out of reach (this is also addressed in H.R. 840). And as far as national security goes, some of the CCP’s rural land purchases have been in proximity to U.S. military bases. What could go wrong?

It’s bad enough that American farmers suffer under onerous regulation at the hands of the USDA and other government agencies. If this bill fails, it is certain the Biden administration’s weak foreign policy will not only endanger the nation’s future on the world stage but also pave the way for even greater pressure on the men and women in so-called “flyover country”—truly, the backbone of our nation.

According to the (unreliable) figures that are currently available, China is by no means the United States’ largest foreign agricultural landholder. However, since the communist nation is widely held to present the greatest menace to the United States on a variety of fronts, and given the increasingly blatant threats we’ve seen recently, it’s entirely appropriate to investigate and put a stop to the CCP’s purchasing of American land.

We’ll let Rep. Miller have the last word:

“Our adversaries continue to rob our country of wealth and prosperity under Joe Biden’s weak leadership. Congress must respond to the critical economic and national security threats China poses to our nation because Joe Biden refuses to put America’s safety and best interests first. America is on a dangerous path of losing our self-sufficiency in farming, and we must take the threat of China’s provocation seriously by passing the Saving American Farms from Adversaries Act.”

TAKE ACTION: Call your U.S. Congressmember and ask him/her to please co-sponsor H.R. 840. It is important they our federal lawmakers hear from us about this national security proposal. The rest of Illinois’ Congressional delegation should have no problem signing on to this legislation.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control is sending out an LGBTQ inclusive self-assessment guide to all schools in the country. The agency wants to find out how committed schools are to providing a safe and inclusive environment for these students. The CDC’s school health division believes that when schools provide such an environment for gay and transgender students, it will improve the health and success of all students.

What makes them think this?

Obviously, someone at the CDC put in a lot of time and effort to developing the full color 32 page guide. But how does an organization whose mission is the control and prevention of diseases find the justification to create such a document? And why do they think they are qualified to deal with this issue? Do they consider homosexuality, transgenderism, queerness a disease?

Of course not. The disease they are attacking is our culture. This takes a little explanation to understand.

For years it has been known that members of the LGBTQ community suffer from mental illnesses at higher levels than heterosexuals. In fact, anxiety, depression, alcohol and drug dependence are problems that are 2.5 times greater among homosexuals and transgenders. Prior to 1973, being a homosexual was, itself, considered a mental illness. That changed when the American Psychiatric Association decided to remove homosexuality from the DSM-II, the bible for mental illness.

At the time, most of those who voted for this change did not believe that homosexuality was normal. Instead, because homosexuality was listed as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, homosexuals could be denied employment. This was not right, they thought. So the condition was removed as an illness.

Removing homosexuality from the manual did not change the frequency of mental illness experienced by the LGBTQ community, however. It was higher before 1973, and it was higher after 1973, right up to 2023.

Since 1973 there has been a continuing campaign to view homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. That effort started to dramatically increase after 1985, when Division 44 of the American Psychological Association was established. Division 44, also known as the Society for the Study of Lesbian and Gay Issues, is the APA’s subgroup focused on LGBTQ issues. Today, that group has 1,500 members spread across 50 states, the District of Columbia and eleven other countries. Most of the members are, themselves, LGBTQ.

From the beginning, Division 44, operating behind the scenes and largely in secret, worked to restructure the culture to be more affirming of the LGBTQ lifestyles. That started to ramp up significantly in 2004 when Judith Glassgold was president of that division. In the Fall, 2004 newsletter for the division, she published a portion of her remarks at the APA annual convention that past summer.

Glassgold endorsed what she called “Liberation Psychology.”

Liberation Psychology cannot be considered science, or even social science. It was the brainchild of Ignacio Martin-Baro, a Spanish born Jesuit priest. He also was a University of Chicago trained social psychologist who had been assigned by the Jesuits to El Salvador. In El Salvado he promoted liberation theology, which was Christian theology merged with promoting liberation of the oppressed.

Combining his radical theology with his expertise in social psychology (a discipline that views the source of many psychological problems as being directly caused by oppressive social norms) he came up with “Liberation Psychology.” Liberation Psychology combines elements of Marxism, feminism, liberation philosophy, liberation theology, critical psychology, critical theory, critical gender and critical race theories, critical pedagogy, as well as other ideological streams.

Essentially, it is more a religious cause than a scientific endeavor. It is a theory that, in practice, has no successes it can trumpet. And it is a theory that was built on a jumbled mass of speculation.

Glassgold writes: “Liberation psychology is necessary because we are oppressed . . .  Thus, understanding oppression is essential for understanding the psychological difficulties our community faces, for much of the behavior that ends up being termed ‘psychopathology’ is not simply an individual trait, but the outcome of social forces.” 

She proposed that the work of the profession is not merely to heal, but to reshape society.

For years after 1973, many psychologists and psychiatrists continued to work with homosexuals to help them conform to the social norm of heterosexuality. Some of the therapeutic efforts involved mostly talk therapy. But other approaches involved aversion therapies or other abusive types of treatments. The more abusive approaches have since been discredited for all change efforts, whether it was used to neutralize homosexual urges or to stop overeating, drug or alcohol abuse, or any other unwanted behavior.

Since 1985, Division 44 has been hard at work to discredit all efforts to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality, not only the aversion therapies. These psychologists claimed that children were born gay or born trans. For years they searched for and tried to prove there was a gay gene. But there is none. Now they insist homosexuality is inherent, a natural occurring identity on the sexual continuum.

Behind the “born that way” claim for homosexuality, there is an anti-science, blind refusal to seek understanding about how a person becomes gay. When a child says “I’m gay” or I’m lesbian” or I’m trans” we must accept it without question. It makes no difference that more than half of the LGBTQ community self-report as having been sexually abused or having experienced some other sexual trauma. Anyone who dares to explore the origins of a child’s declared homosexuality is branded a heartless homophobe. Of course, this has allowed countless predators who abused many of them to get away scot-free.

Division 44 demands that every segment of society conform to their view that LGBTQ is normal and should be affirmed by everyone. This effort started in their own professions by forcing changes in the ethical standards for psychologists, social workers and other helping professions. It has become unethical for therapists to question a person’s gender identity. Several states have incorporated these standards into law, even if the person wants help to change.

Today we all are just supposed to accept and affirm a person’s self-proclaimed gender identity. In fact, the preferred response is to celebrate the person’s gender identity.

This philosophy has been pushed into every element of our culture—media, entertainment, sports, education, government, churches, everywhere. Almost every school has a GSA (originally Gay Straight Alliance, now Gender and Sexualities Alliance) or GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) clubs. Originally sold as an antidote to bullying, these clubs work within the schools to normalize homosexual and transgender identities. The claim was that it was only gay students who were being bullied. Which is preposterous on its face.

Now the effort is taking the next step. The activists are working to normalize the sexual activities of the homosexual community even among children. Through the GSA’s and GLSEN, the students themselves are demanding LGBTQ focused sex ed which includes instruction on how to engage in all manner of same sex sexual activities, unisex locker rooms, trans girls on girls sports teams, puberty blockers, transgender hormones and surgeries.

Through guile, manipulation, infiltration, threats, demands, cancellations, demonstrations, lies, Division 44 and its minions have bludgeoned almost the whole of society to conform to the false narrative it has created: children are born gay and we must all affirm and celebrate them. Society must conform. It is the only path to improved mental health for the LGBTQ community. Division 44 started off by focusing on adult homosexuals, but in the last 20 years, they have turned their focus toward children.

So this is the cause that the CDC now has taken up. Indoctrinate children and change the culture in a single generation. When the change has been accomplished, the increased mental illnesses experienced by the LGBTQ community will vanish. When everyone accepts varying and constantly changing sexual identities as normal, an infinite number of self-determined pronouns as the standard, the ever increasing number of gender identities, there will be no differences in the prevalence of mental illness experienced whether gay or straight. So they say.

To the CDC, as with Division 44, the culture we have forged in the United States, a culture that serves as a beacon of freedom to the world, a culture that produced the greatest generation, that created the greatest nation in the history of the world . . . that culture, that culture is the disease the CDC is out to cure.

This is happening before our eyes.

On January 9, 2023, U.S. Representative Lauren Boebert (R-CO) introduced H.R. 128, also known as the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2023, to the U.S. House of Representatives. This proposal would restrict the federal funds Planned Parenthood receives for abortion (except in cases of rape or incest or danger to the woman’s life) for one year to redirect $235 million toward community health centers. Currently, 40 representatives have cosponsored the bill. The Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2023 was referred to the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce on January 9th, the same day it was introduced, and has not moved since.

In the official press release from Rep. Boebert’s government website, she’s quoted as saying,

The nation’s largest abortion provider has no business receiving taxpayer dollars. Planned Parenthood claims these funds go to healthcare for women, but last year, Planned Parenthood performed a record number of abortions while also reducing the number of well-woman exams and breast cancer screenings it performed. Instead of funding Planned Parenthood, my bill will redirect this funding to community health centers that actually meet the health needs of women across the country.

Millions of dollars of federal money, many of which are taxpayer dollars, go to Planned Parenthood every year. A lot of this money is poured into expanding abortion access, prioritizing it above caring for women in real ways, such as through cancer screenings or prenatal care. Rep. Boebert’s bill would redirect $235 million to community health care centers that work to provide real health care.

As Illinois strives to become the abortion capital of the world, we need to pray that this bill goes through. If Planned Parenthood were to lose its funding, it would be just that much more difficult for them to continue opening and operating new abortion mills.

The forty U.S. Congressmembers who have co-sponsored this important bill include Republicans Mary Miller and Mike Bost of southern Illinois. To read the full text of the bill and the list of cosponsors, click here.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your federal representative to ask him/her to vote for this legislation when it comes up for a vote. Urge them to support this legislation that will take steps to stop abortion and significantly limit Planned Parenthood’s federal funding.

Please, support this life-saving bill.