Last Thursday night, District 211—the largest high school district in the state with 12,000 students and five high schools—held a board meeting to discuss Superintendent Daniel Cates’ boneheaded proposal to allow students who “identify” as the opposite sex to have unrestricted access to the locker rooms of opposite-sex peers. Expecting a large crowd, the district moved the meeting to Palatine High School. The Daily Herald reported that 25 speakers were randomly selected, 16 of whom opposed the proposal, which is well over 50 percent.

Several years ago, when the district was first sued by a biological boy who was self-“identifying” as a girl, Cates allowed him to use the girls’ locker room as long as he changed clothes behind a privacy curtain. Cates steadfastly opposed this boy’s request for unrestricted access to the girls’ locker room. That was then, this is now. Now Cates proposes allowing boys and girls who pretend to be the sex they aren’t to have unrestricted access to the locker rooms of their opposite-sex peers. Perhaps Cates is spineless and follows the path of least resistance, which now leads into darkness. Perhaps he has morally devolved as so many school administrators have. Or perhaps his retirement at the end of this school year has freed his authentic inner corrupt self to emerge.

Cates couldn’t do this dirty work alone. It takes a village and at least four board members to indoctrinate children with an incoherent, irrational, and harmful ideology. One of those sorry villagers is the newly elected, morally corrupt, and unpleasant District 211 board member Kim Cavill, who is a sex “educator” when she’s not promoting feckless locker room policies.

If her name rings a bell, it’s because I mentioned her in an article about former District U46 school board member Jeanette Ward, a fearless, wise, and gracious woman who endured egregiously disrespectful treatment from fellow board members Traci O’Neal Ellis, Veronica Noland, and Melissa Owens. In an online post, Cavill referred to Jeanette Ward as the “High Priestess of the Order of Moron.” Oddly, that comment has been scrubbed from the Internet. Maybe she thought such a comment wouldn’t help her get elected to the District 211 board. Sounds a wee bit intolerant and hateful.

The curious story of the April 2019 election of Kim Cavill actually goes back to the even curiouser story of the 2017 school board election. Three well-qualified people who opposed co-ed private spaces for minors were running against three people who supported co-ed private spaces for minors. The three well-qualified challengers were,

Jean Forrest, a Chinese-American woman with an MA in economics who works as an actuary

Katherine Jee Young David, a Korean-American woman with a BS in Business Administration from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Ralph Bonatz who has a degree in electrical engineering and is a global quality control manager for an international corporation

On March 22, 2017, just 13 days before the 2017 election, LaSaia Wade, a 29-year-old “black trans woman” (i.e., a biological man), and Daye Pope, another biological male who passes as a woman, set up a Super PAC called Trans United Fund Illinois. Pope is the organizing director for a 501(c)(3) called Trans United Fund.

Two days later, on March 24, 2017—11 days before the 2017 election—Kim Cavill and her sister Lindsay Christensen set up a Super PAC called Parents and Neighbors for Quality Education (PNQE).

Just days after the founding of Trans United Fund Illinois, donations from some surprising people came pouring in:

• Matrix Director “Lana” Wachowski, a biological man who pretends to be a woman and lives with his dominatrix wife in Chicago, donated a whopping $10,000.

• Far left Illinois State Senator Heather Steans (D-Chicago) also donated $10,000.

• Homosexual Clark Pellet, a retired attorney and development chair for the “LGBTQ” Center on Halsted who lives in Chicago, donated $5,000.

• Executive director of Gender Rights Maryland, Dana Beyer, a man who pretends to be a woman and lives in Chevy Chase, MD donated $1,000.

• Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) who lives in Brooklyn, NY donated $500.

• Homosexual Douglas Hattaway, president and CEO of a Washington D.C. strategic communications firm who lives in D.C., donated $500.

• Architect Kira Kinsman, a biological man formerly known as Kyle Kinsman who lives in Wilkes Barre, PA, donated $250.

The more than $26, 000 in donations for a school board election from donors who don’t live in District 211 then went to—you guessed it—Cavill’s Parents and Neighbors for Quality Education.

Enquiring minds may wonder why Cavill and her sister set up PNQE, since Trans United Fund Illinois was already established. Why the extra step to fund the defeat of conservatives? The answer to that question might be found in mailers and yard signs. State law requires that campaign mailers and yard signs identify the groups that pay for them. Signs must say “Approved by….”

Which sounds better—and by “better” I mean less likely to arouse suspicion: “Approved by Trans United Fund Illinois” or “Approved by Parents and Neighbors for Quality Education”?

Flush with filthy lucre, the Cavill sisters got busy smearing good people with nary a backward glance.

As reported by the “LGBTQ” newspaper Windy City Times, a local mom (Who could that have been?) reached out to Trans United Fund, “a national trans-led advocacy group,” who agreed to help them defeat the three candidates who supported single-sex locker rooms:

Trans United Fund (TUF) and a group of local parents, youth, and allies, worked together to launch the first trans-led, trans-focused independent expenditure in history. TUF assembled a powerful team of thoughtful allies to quickly build and execute a research-informed and strategic plan to help the parents and youth get their message out. TUF supported the parents’ efforts through digital, mail, phone banking and helping to train volunteers to reach their neighbors at the door.

The Windy City Times made clear this campaign was a smear campaign in which good people who believe locker rooms and restrooms should correspond to biological sex were vilified. District 211 community member Tracey Salvatore, spewing venomous lies said this about the good people who were defeated:

We are fed up with this small group of vocal, transphobic people guided by a national hate group [Alliance Defending Freedom] wreaking havoc in our community…. Our District 211 community will not tolerate adults bullying kids or intimidating us for one more day. The ADF-inspired slate of candidates ran with the agenda of inserting a hate-based, national agenda into our schools. They didn’t care that their policy changes would increase bullying and violence against kids…. So we reached out to Trans United Fund and they helped us to get our message out to our neighbors and community members. (emphasis added)

Neither Salvatore nor anyone affiliated with PNQE felt the ethical obligation to provide evidence that the three candidates feared or hated “trans”-identifying students, or that they bullied kids, or that they intimidated community members, or that ADF has a “hate-based agenda,” or that single-sex private spaces for minors increase “bullying and violence.” Why try to provide impossible-to-find evidence when hate-mongering rhetoric does the job.

The belief that biological sex is the source of feelings of modesty and the right to privacy when undressing does not constitute hatred of persons no matter how many times people like Salvatore and Cavill spread their repugnant lies.

I wonder if Salvatore spreads these same ugly and false lies about feminists—including lesbians—who oppose biological males in women’s private spaces. Perhaps Salvatore is unaware of the growing schism in the “LGBT” alliance. Just a week ago, a group of influential supporters of the “LGB rights” movement in the United Kingdom, including Stonewall UK founder Simon Fanshawe, published an open letter in the Sunday Times in which they criticize Stonewall and suggest it’s time for the formation of a new organization that is “committed both to freedom of speech and to fact instead of fantasy.” Here’s an excerpt from that letter that Salvatore, Cavill, and Cates should ponder:

Last October a group of LGB rights supporters asked Stonewall to “commit to fostering an atmosphere of respectful debate rather than demonising as transphobic those who wish to discuss, or dissent from, Stonewall’s transgender policies.” Since then, Stonewall has refused repeated requests to enter into any such dialogue…. We believe it has made mistakes in its approach that undermine women’s sex-based rights and protections. The most worrying aspect of this is that all primary-school children are now challenged to review their ‘gender identity’ and decide that they may be the opposite sex if they do not embrace outdated gender stereotypes.

Does Salvatore demonize teens as hateful transphobes if they don’t want to undress in the presence of male peers? What about female teachers who don’t want to undress in front of male colleagues? Does she accuse them of hate-based bullying?

Almost immediately after the school board election and defeat for all three good candidates, Cavill and her sister deactivated their Super PAC. Malignant Mission Accomplished.

And now we return our story to the school board election of April 2019. Kim Cavill, the person who orchestrated the ugly and deceitful campaign smear of three good people by creating a Super PAC front for a Super PAC financed by “LGBTQ” donors from out of the district, ran for the District 211 board and won. Is she really an emblem of good government and transparency?

If you are not yet convinced of her unfitness for serving on a school board or her unfitness to serve as a role model for children, here are just a smattering of quotes from her sex ed podcasts for children and teens.

From her podcast for tweens and teens on anal sex titled “All About Anal”:

Before trying anal sex, people need to talk about their own and their partner’s boundaries like any other type of sex. It should be preceded by a conversation about what the people participating in sex are consenting to, what they aren’t consenting to, how they’re expecting sex to go, and how they’re going to communicate during sex to make sure everyone’s still on the same page. Anal sex also requires a lot of lube.

From her podcast for “tweens and teens” titled “Let’s Talk About Porn”:

Porn can certainly cause relationship problems but so can a lot of other things. Porn causing relationship problems isn’t inevitable, it depends on the relationship and it depends on how the people in that relationship feel about porn…. [T]he evidence says that if you think porn’s bad, it is, and if you think porn’s fine, then it is.

One thing notable from sexpert Cavill’s podcasts is how studiously she avoids the words boy, girl, man, and woman. Even in her podcast explaining how babies come into existence, she never mentions men and women. Instead, she describes a “grown-up with a penis” and a “grown-up with a vagina.” Huh. I wonder what those are.

There are two lessons to be learned from this incredible story:

1. Local communities no longer control their own school boards and, therefore, their schools.

2. Cultural regressives are targeting the hearts, minds, and bodies of other people’s children—your children—and they’re using your money to do it.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Incredible-Story-of-District-211-School-Board-Elections_AUDIO.mp3

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Yesterday I commented under an article on The Hill on Merriam-Webster Dictionary adding “they” as a pronoun for “gender nonbinary” persons, an article that also referred to British singer Sam Smith‘s announcement that he’s “nonbinary.” Like Merriam-Webster, the Chicago Tribune has bought hook, line, and sinker the “trans” language rules. Writing about the singular man Sam Smith, the Trib wrote this embarrassing sentence:

Smith said they were excited and privileged for the support, adding that they’ve been “very nervous” about the announcement because they ”care too much about what people think.”

Someone responded to my Hill comment, and here’s the short confab I had with “NukeNado” about this nonsense:

Laurie: The “trans” community doesn’t have the right to unilaterally restructure English grammar in the service of their science-denying ideology. While “trans”-identifying persons may believe that each person creates his or her own “reality,” others believe real material phenomena exist, can be known, and matter. My reality includes the real phenomena in the world, like the fact that Sam Smith is a singular person and a man. And my reality excludes lying.

A remarkable and revelatory debate took place on IFI’s Facebook page on Sunday between me and Alan Mills, the executive director of the Uptown People’s Law Center, who received his undergraduate degree in philosophy from Ivy League Brown University and his law degree from Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. I don’t want to speak ill of the irrational, so I will let you figure out what this debate reveals.

It all began with this question from another commenter: “Does it create a better environment if 1 percent of the students are uncomfortable getting undressed and dressed for gym class, or 99 percent of the students?”

Mills responded, “Would you apply the same test to racial segregation? Why not?”

And the debate was afoot.

Laurie:  I would think that with an Ivy League education and law degree from Northwestern you would have greater facility with analogies.

First, in order for your analogy to work there have to be some points of correspondence between opposite-sex “identification” (or impersonation) per se and race or skin color per se. There are none.

Second, there would have to be some points of correspondence between racial segregation everywhere and sexual segregation in private spaces where sexually differentiated humans undress. There are none.

Segregating races in buses, restaurants, and housing was based on false beliefs about the races. There are no ontological differences between races that meaningfully bear on riding buses, eating in restaurants or being housed. In contrast, sexual segregation in restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, semi-private hospital rooms, jails, and prisons are based on real ontological differences between biological men and biological women. Moreover, these differences meaningfully bear on undressing and engaging in bodily functions.

If sexual segregation per se is as intrinsically evil as racial segregation per se, then there should be laws prohibiting all sexual segregation. Is the Uptown People’s Law Center fighting for the eradication of all sex-segregated spaces?

Alan Mills: This is not about sexual segregation. It is about insisting that biological differences justify discrimination. That is EXACTLY what racial segregation was about. Just like sex, there is indisputably a biological difference between white and black skin. The question is whether that difference in biology justified treating people as second class citizens.

Laurie: Yes, the issue is precisely about sexual segregation—sexual segregation in high school locker rooms.

You evidently didn’t understand my argument, so, I’ll try again.

I did not argue that there are no biological differences between blacks and whites. I argued that those differences did not bear meaningfully on riding buses, eating in restaurants, or being housed. In contrast, the differences between men and women do, indeed, bear meaningfully on private spaces. In fact, those real differences between men and women are the reason sex-segregated spaces exist. The reason drinking fountains exist is decidedly not to recognize racial differences.

Nice try with the “second-class citizen” comment, but treating all men as men and all women as women does not constitute treating any man or any woman as a second-class citizen. Treating sex differences as real and meaningful in contexts where sexually differentiated humans (who are often strangers) undress does not constitute treating anyone as a “second class citizen.”

Not all forms of “segregation” (a loaded term chosen by leftists for its political loadedness) are created equal. I’ll choose a better term: separation. Not all bases on which humans separate are analogous. Some forms of separation are not merely acceptable but good.

Racial segregation was based on erroneous and pernicious beliefs about white superiority and on white hatred of blacks. Sexual segregation in private spaces is based on the true belief that boys and girls, men and women are biologically different and that those differences are meaningful when it comes to being unclothed. Such separation does not reflect any animus of women toward men or vice versa.

Again, biology is irrelevant to the acts of riding buses, drinking at fountains, eating in restaurants, and being housed. Racial segregation was based on animus. In contrast, biologically based sex segregation is relevant to undressing and engaging in personal bodily functions. Separate facilities for men and women when undressing or engaging in personal bodily functions are based on these real differences—not on false beliefs or animus. The reason women don’t want men in their locker rooms is not based on sexual hatred.

So, I’ll ask again, if you believe sexual “segregation” is as intrinsically evil as racial segregation, are you fighting for the end of all sexual “segregation”? How do you justify leaving some sexually segregated spaces? Would you allow some racial segregation to remain legal? Using your deeply flawed analogy, would you allow some “whites only” spaces to remain if some whites wanted them?

Alan Mills: You specifically said that trans women unlike any other women need to use special changing areas—segregated from all other women. Sounds exactly like racial segregation to me.

Laurie: I specifically said no such thing. “Trans-women” are biological men (also known as men), and I specifically said that no biological men should use the private spaces of biological women, which is wholly different from separate lunch counters and drinking fountains for blacks and whites. While skin color differences have no meaning relative to eating, drinking or riding buses, sex differences have profound meaning relative to undressing. In fact, sex differences are the very reason we have sex-separated private spaces for men and women.

Trying a third time: If you believe sexual “segregation” is as intrinsically evil as racial segregation, are you fighting for the end of all sexual “segregation”? How do you justify leaving some sexually segregated spaces? Would you allow some racial segregation to remain legal? Using your deeply flawed analogy, would you allow some “whites only” spaces to remain?

Alan Mills: Gender differences are the reason, not sex differences. As I say, you are demanding that women who do not conform to your notion of what a woman should look like should be segregated, because it would make women who look different uncomfortable.

This is exactly the argument used for segregated neighborhoods, separate drinking fountains, public accommodations, etc.

Laurie: Leftists define “gender” as the aggregate of arbitrary socially constructed conventions that we associate with maleness and/or femaleness, both, or neither. Your claim about the reason for segregated private spaces is patently and demonstrably false in addition to being idiotic.

“Gender” differences are not the reason society created separate restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, dorm rooms, semi-private hospital rooms, jails, and prisons. Biological sex differences between men and women are the reason we have sex-separate private facilities for women and men.

I have never “demanded” that “women who do not conform to” my “notion of what a woman should look like” be segregated in private spaces. Rather, I am asserting that biological men should not be in the private spaces of biological women, which—as I have explained—is wholly different from racially segregated drinking fountains, neighborhoods, or restaurants. Skin color differences are irrelevant to eating and drinking. Whereas racial segregation was based on irrelevant biological differences and animus, sex-segregation in private spaces is based on biological differences relevant to undressing and has no basis in biological sex animus.

My father, my husband, my son, my sons-in-law, and my male friends do not want biological women in their locker rooms. My sister, my daughters, my daughter-in-law, and my female friends do not want biological men in their locker rooms. None of these relatives and friends believes they are superior to persons of the opposite sex, nor do they hate persons of the opposite sex. Rather, they know that sexual differentiation matters when it comes to undressing.

Trying a fourth time: If you believe sexual “segregation” is as intrinsically evil as racial segregation, are you fighting for the end of all sexual “segregation”? How do you justify leaving some sexually segregated spaces? Would you allow some racial segregation to remain legal? Using your deeply flawed analogy, would you allow some “whites only” spaces to remain?

CONCLUSION

Well, that’s where our debate ended. Alan Mills employed lousy analogies; grossly misrepresented my statements, actually lying about what I said; grossly mispresented history; and refused to answer direct questions. Figuring out whether he is obtuse or engaging in deceitful lawyerly rhetorical manipulation is above my pay grade. What I do know is his beliefs based on nonsensical analogies and lies are dangerous and destructive.

Once the term “gender identity” is added to antidiscrimination policies and laws, sex-segregated private spaces begin their slow but ineluctable death march. Banning discrimination based on both sex and feelings about sex (i.e.,“gender identity”) spells the end of all sex-segregation everywhere. If society can no longer separate humans according to either biological sex or “gender identity,” then there remains no legal rationale for retaining any sex-segregated private spaces for anyone anywhere.

For example, if a school allows one boy who “identifies” as a girl to use the girls’ locker room, there is no legal rationale for preventing normal boys (i.e., “cisgender boys) from doing likewise. The school could not prohibit normal boys from using the girls’ locker room based on the fact that they’re biological boys for that would constitute discrimination based on sex (In addition, they’ve already allowed one biological boy to use the girls’ locker room). And schools could not prohibit “cisgender” boys from using the girls’ locker room, because that would constitute discrimination based on gender identity.

Unless the masses of people tethered to reality and morality rise up and oppose this irrational ideology, this is the end of physical privacy, my friends, the end.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Uptown-Peoples-Law-Center.mp3

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Just when you thought civilized first-world countries had deposited mythology and science-denying irrationality in the dustbin of history, the “trans” cult emerged seeking to force science-loving Americans to embrace the solipsistic, “trans”-centric worldview in which biological sex has neither reality nor meaning. Worse, you have ostensibly non-mentally ill school leaders capitulating to the “trans” cult’s absurd and offensive demands—people like Township High School District 211 superintendent Dr. Daniel Cates. Cates wants District 211—the largest high school district in Illinois with 12,000 students and five high schools—to sexually integrate locker rooms.

Cates wants to allow students who pretend to be the sex they aren’t to have unrestricted access to opposite-sex locker rooms. If Cates gets his druthers, whatever girls are permitted to do in girls’ locker rooms, boys who pretend to be girls will be permitted to do also. If girls are permitted to partially undress or wholly undress openly in girls’ locker rooms, then boys who pretend to be girls will be allowed to do so as well. Presumably, if girls are permitted to shower nude, so too will pretend-girls (aka boys) be allowed to shower nude.

Prior requirements that these boys change in private changing areas will be rescinded. In an email sent to parents on Thursday, Sept. 12, Cates referred to boys and girls in tortured, hilarious, politically correct language, calling them “adolescents with different anatomy.” I kid you not. He said that.

Cates is jim-dandy with girls and boys undressing together in locker rooms. How do I know Cates—who should be fired—is jim-dandy with co-ed locker rooms? I know because he said this in his pro-“trans” email:

[U]nderstanding and acceptance of transgender identity have advanced—societally and in our immediate communities—for the better. In our district and countless others, students, families and staff honor, respect and celebrate all manifestations of the human condition. (emphasis added)

Did an educated man really say that? Does he celebrate all manifestations of the human condition? How about racism, disease, intergenerational love, Genetic Sexual Attraction, polyamory, infantilism, sadomasochism, and zoophilia?

How does Cates demonstrate respect for those who believe “adolescents with different anatomy” should not undress or engage in bodily functions in the presence of peers of the opposite sex? How does he communicate his respect for those who believe the sexual integration of locker rooms undermines the belief that modesty derives from anatomical differentiation?

Cates has explicitly and unequivocally announced that the district has embraced a radical set of Leftist ideological assumptions created and advanced by the “trans” cult, without providing a persuasive reason why private space usage should correspond to subjective and often fluid “gender identity” as opposed to objective immutable biological sex. Nor has he shared his view on which locker rooms “gender fluid” students use.

Someone should ask Cates this question: Is it legitimate, valid, sound, reasonable, and good for girls not to want to share private spaces with opposite-sex persons? If it is, then what difference should it make to girls if opposite-sex persons wish they were girls? If it’s not legitimate, valid, sound, reasonable, or good, then why have any sex-segregated private spaces?

“Progressives” often ask snottily, “So, are we going to have genitalia police outside restrooms and locker rooms to confirm the presence of the right genitalia before people enter,” to which I reply, “Are we going to have ‘gender identity’ police outside restrooms and locker rooms to prove that the man seeking to enter really is ‘trans’ rather than a predator pretending to be ‘trans?’”

Since “gender identity” is subjective and internal, how do, for example, boys who “identify” as girls know the “gender identities” of the students in the boys’ and girls’ locker rooms? Let’s try this thought experiment: If most of the boys in the boys’ locker room at a particular school were to identify internally as girls and most of the girls were to identify internally as boys, which locker room should boys who impersonate girls use and why? It’s likely Leftists would answer that they should use whichever private spaces they want. And that, my friends, is where this is headed: The end game is the eradication of public recognition of biological sex everywhere for everyone, which means no private spaces anywhere for anyone.

Cates has either become a true believer in the “trans”-cultic mythology or he has sacrificed his principles and integrity on the altar to the almighty god of the greenback. Faced with a lawsuit against the district by a boy who pretends to be a girl, perhaps Cates—a graduate of the University of Notre Dame—would rather sacrifice science and the privacy and modesty of girls and boys than either district money or his job.

A man of real courage, principle, and integrity would never adopt such a foul policy. Rather, a man of courage, principle, and integrity would resign instead of adopting a policy that teaches girls and boys that biological sex has no meaning relative to feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy when undressing.

A man of courage, principle, and integrity would resign before adopting a policy that implicitly teaches that opposition to sharing locker rooms with opposite sex peers is ignorant, bigoted, and hateful.

A decent and wise leader would know that it’s wrong to put normal children in the awkward position of having to ask for special accommodations because they don’t want to change clothes or go to the bathroom in the presence of opposite-sex peers.

A decent and wise leader would know that such a pernicious policy will desensitize children and teens to engaging in private acts in the presence of opposite-sex peers, thereby undermining what is left of respect for the necessary virtue of modesty.

I’ve had “progressive” parents tell me that their daughters are fine undressing in the presence of “trans”-identifying male peers. These parents are happy about their daughters’ socially constructed, unnatural feelings. They—like Cates—view the belief that biological sex has no meaning relative to modesty and privacy as social and moral progress. Compassion—in their distorted worldview—demands we pretend maleness and femaleness have nothing to do with biological sex.

Ironically, while rejecting the importance of biological sex, which wholly determined by biochemistry, “progressives” believe that if biochemistry influences the desire to be the opposite sex, such desires are supremely important and morally legitimate to act upon. But do they apply that principle consistently? If biochemistry influences the desire to be an amputee (i.e., Body Integrity Identity Disorder), should we allow students to socially transition at school? Should schools allow anatomically whole students who identify as amputees to use handicap parking spaces, use a wheelchair in school, and be given extra passing-period time?

Since we know that biochemistry can be disordered and influence both thoughts and feelings, how do “trans” cultists know that when there is a mismatch or incongruity between their biological sex and their “gender identity” (i.e., their subjective, internal sense of their maleness, femaleness, both, or neither) the error resides in their bodies rather than their minds?

How many dads and moms will show up to publicly and courageously oppose this feckless policy proposal? How many staff or faculty charged with supervising locker rooms will oppose supervising students of the opposite sex who are undressing?

District 211 encompasses a large geographic area in which there are many churches. It will be interesting to see if any pastors—who are citizens that enjoy the privilege of self-government and whose congregations include children in this district—will turn out to oppose the sexual integration of locker rooms. (Don’t hold your breath.)

Conservatives, get your kids out of government schools now. No child should be trained up by foolish, cowardly adults who refer to boys and girls as “adolescents with different anatomy” and let them undress together. Trust me, no matter what empty blather “progressive” government school administrators and faculty members spew about respecting diversity and “all manifestations of the human condition,” they don’t like conservatives or want them around—especially conservative Christians, you know, the “haters.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Largest-Illinois-High-School-District-Opposes-Single-Sex-Locker-Rooms.mp3

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Much of what the homosexual community (i.e., those who choose to place their unchosen homoerotic desires at the center of their identity) claims is false, and increasingly they’re being forced to admit their claims are false. Some of these claims may have been born out of ignorance, others out of a deliberate strategy to deceive. For example, for decades the myth that homosexuals constitute 10 percent of the population continued to be disseminated by homosexuals and their ideological allies long after the statistic had been thoroughly discredited. It was used to promote implicitly the idiotic and destructive idea that the number of people engaging in an act or affirming an “identity” indicates something about the morality of the act or “identity.”

Perhaps the most destructive myth still being promoted has two parts, both false. The first part is that homosexuality is a fixed and heritable condition. The second part says that since homoerotic interest is fixed and biochemically determined, it cannot be transmitted via the environment. Only those born with the determinative biochemical factors will experience homoerotic attraction—or so the homosexual community asserts. This false belief resulted in homosexuals mocking conservatives for their concern that exposure to positive ideas about and images of homosexuality may result in an increase in homoerotic activity.

Now, however, we know there is no single gene for homosexuality. A “genome-wide association study” published in the professional journal Science on August 30, 2019 has made a big media splash for confirming what has long been assumed by scientists: There is no “gay” gene. Unlike skin color or biological sex, homoerotic desire is not biologically determined.

In fact, the researchers (apparently reluctantly) made two interesting admissions. First, they admitted that the genes that may influence same-sex attraction also influence other predispositions:

These aggregate genetic influences partly overlapped with those on a variety of other traits, including…. smoking, cannabis use, risk-taking, and the personality trait “openness to experience.”

Might cannabis-use, risk-taking, and openness to experience lead to experimentation with diverse forms of sexual deviance?

Second, they admitted the influence of environment:

Our study focused on the genetic basis of same-sex sexual behavior, but several of our results point to the importance of sociocultural context as well. We observed changes in prevalence of reported same-sex sexual behavior across time, raising questions about how genetic and sociocultural influences on sexual behavior might interact.

The prevalence of homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome and in Japan during the Tokugawa period was not a function of an altered gene pool or other biochemical differences but, rather, of differences in cultural views.

Sara Reardon writing in Scientific American explained in layman’s terms more about what the research team did and what their study reveals:

They asked more than 477,000 participants whether they had ever had sex with someone of the same sex, and also questions about sexual fantasies and the degree to which they identified as gay or straight.

The researchers found five single points in the genome that seemed to be common among people who had had at least one same-sex experience…. But taken together, these five markers explained less than 1 percent of the differences in sexual activity among people in the study. When the researchers looked at the overall genetic similarity of individuals who had had a same-sex experience, genetics seemed to account for between 8 and 25 percent of the behavior. The rest was presumably a result of environmental or other biological influences.

Despite the associations, the authors say that the genetic similarities still cannot show whether a given individual is gay. “It’s the end of the ‘gay gene,’” says Eric Vilain, a geneticist at Children’s National Health System in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the study….

The authors say that they did see links between sexual orientation and sexual activity, but concede that the genetic links do not predict orientation.

Here’s an odd bit of political rhetoric highlighted in the scientific study itself:

The topic explored in this study is complex and intersects with sexuality, identity, and attraction and potentially has civil and political implications for sexual minority groups. Therefore, we have… [e]ngaged with LGBTQIA+ advocacy groups nationally and within our local institutions…. We wish to make it clear that our results overwhelmingly point toward the richness and diversity of human sexuality. Our results do not point toward a role for discrimination on the basis of sexual identity or attraction, nor do our results make any conclusive statements about the degree to which “nature” and “nurture” influence sexual preference.

Why would politically neutral, objective hard science researchers engage with “LGBTQIA+” activists about their research at all? And why include references to intersectionality, “sexual minority groups,” “richness,” and “discrimination”? They explained that the reason for their momentary deviation from science was that “there is a long history of misusing genetic results for social purposes.”

I couldn’t agree more. The homosexual and anti-life communities have long misused genetic results and theories to advance their pernicious cultural agendas.

Many academicians, including homosexual scholars, also claim that the long-promoted notion that “sexual orientation” is fixed is false. Dr. Lisa Diamond, lesbian professor of psychology at the University of Utah (who received her degrees from Cornell University and the University of Chicago) is just one homosexual scholar who argues that “sexual orientation” is fluid. And “Queer Theory” has long affirmed the fluidity of “sexual orientation.”

But mainstream journalists either haven’t been aware of these ideas about “sexual orientation” or realized the political implications of them and feared the response from the tyrannical “LGBTQ” community if they exposed them.

We know that ideas and images can influence desire and volitional acts. Homosexuals have been wrong, and conservatives have not been concerned enough about the influence of pro-homosexual ideas and the pervasiveness of positive images of homosexuality in network and streaming shows, movies, advertising, newspapers, magazines, pornography, and government schools.

The misdirection or disordering of the sex drive can result from abuse as well as exposure to both ideas and images. The extirpation of the taboo against homoerotic acts opened the door to intellectual exploration of the desirability of homoerotic acts as well as experimentation. We will see more homosexual activity and relationships in “civilized” countries that have exalted subjectivism, radical autonomy, sexual libertinism, and rebellion against social norms, while undermining the nuclear family, theological orthodoxy, the notion of a common public good, and sexual taboos.

Let’s look at pornography for a better understanding of the effect of culture on the spread of body-, soul-, and family-destroying sexual deviance.

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation reports that

Fraternity men who consumed mainstream pornography expressed a greater intent to commit rape if they knew they would not be caught than those who did not consume pornography. Those who consumed sadomasochistic pornography expressed significantly less willingness to intervene in situations of sexual violence, greater belief in rape myths, and greater intent to commit rape.

Men were not born with a biochemically determined predilection for rape. Men, like women, are born with a fallen nature that makes them vulnerable to all sorts of sinful desires and acts. Ideas and images can shape the direction of our sinful acts. The sex drive is a powerful impulse that can be misdirected toward diverse inappropriate objects and activities.

Now that the culture at large has embraced first homosexuality as an immutable “identity” that can’t be judged and then homoerotic activity as morally benign, it won’t easily relinquish the pleasures of hedonism when foundational lies that led to acceptance are exposed. That this anti-culture movement has flourished based on a foundation of lies won’t matter to a non-rational society.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Can-Homosexuality-Spread-Via-Culture.mp3

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Since the time he was a young boy and his grandmother sewed him a purple dress and told him how beautiful he looked, Walt Heyer had struggled with transgenderism. Through elementary school and high school, where he was a successful student and athlete with a beautiful girlfriend, he hid his secret identity as a woman, and continued to do so through college and prestigious careers at both NASA and Honda, until he went through destructive therapy sessions and became an alcoholic, losing his job and nearly all of his respect. But then something changed–while sitting with a friend who was praying for him, he saw Christ, who promised Walt that “you are now safe with Me forever.”

Walt’s story is a story of brokenness and redemption through Christ Jesus, and a witness to the hope we can find through God alone.

Walt shared his story at the 2019 Worldview Conference earlier this year:

IFI Fall Banquet with Franklin Graham!
We are excited to announce that at this year’s IFI banquet, our keynote speaker will be none other than Rev. Franklin Graham, President & CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christian evangelist & missionary. This year’s event will be at the Tinley Park Convention Center on Nov. 1st.

Learn more HERE.

It was announced a week ago that the bizarre hate crime of which actor Jussie Smollett alleges he was a victim and the subsequent clean-up of his mess by incompetent fixer State’s Attorney Kim Foxx is going to be investigated by a special prosecutor. This turn of events reminded me of yard signs. On your leisurely summer walks, have you seen those yard signs that cropped up all over Illinois and other states over the past three years—you know, the ones with the banal expression “HATE HAS NO HOME HERE”? Who could disagree with such a statement, and, therefore, why a yard sign? Well, there’s text and then there’s subtext and history. The text expresses an important idea commonly held. So, why make a yard sign to announce a commonplace verity to every passerby every day for three years? Ah, now we come to the subtext, but first the fascinating history that the mainstream press did a very poor job illuminating.

On November 15, 2016, exactly one week after the election of President Donald Trump, NBC News Chicago reported that bisexual student Taylor Volk, then a senior at the purportedly Christian North Park University, said she had received two anonymous emails and a note taped to her door that contained “homophobic slurs,” “harassing, threatening language” and references to Trump. Volk further claimed that such occurrences were a “nationwide epidemic.”

Just three days later, on November 18, it was breathlessly reported that six social justice warriors (actually seven) from the North Park neighborhood had already created the yard signs. Kurt Peterson, Barbara Nordlund, Steven Velez Luce, Megan Trinter, Carmen Rodriguez, Jeanne Marie Olson, and Catherine Korda were the eager, hate-hating beavers who had yard signs ready to go just three days after the traumatized Volk was interviewed by the press.

But then things took an unexpected turn, though why it was unexpected is surprising.

A week after Volk’s story made the news, an investigation revealed her entire story was—wait for it—a hoax. But “progressives” can’t let either a crisis or a hoax go to waste. Gotta mine even hoaxes for propaganda gold. So, with very little press on the hoax, the gang of seven were able to disseminate their banal, virtue-signaling yard signs around the country and even the world, although oddly the website doesn’t mention the hoax in the group’s background myth.

Now for the subtext or subtexts. While the text suggests that community members reject hatred—which most community members in most communities do—the subtext coming on the heels of Volk’s Hoax is that Trump is a hater, that those who voted for him (you know, the “deplorables”) are haters, and that those who disagree with the arguable assumptions of  “progressives” on immigration or the “LGBTQ” ideology are haters.

These yard signs are the neighborhood equivalent of “safe space” stickers that regressive public school teachers/activists affix to their desks and regressive corporate employees affix to their desks and cubicle dividers. These yard signs and stickers are cunning strategic devices. First, they are political announcements masquerading as noble humanitarian gestures. Second, their absence implies that community members, teachers, or corporate employees with naked yards, desks, cubicles, or offices are insufficiently “woke,” unsafe, intolerant, bigoted haters. And so, “progressive” mission accomplished.

Safety and hatred, like tolerance, ignorance, bigotry, and equality, have been redefined. Now safety refers to and requires the affirmation of “progressive” assumptions about immigration and about the nature and morality of homosexual acts and cross-sex impersonation. And hatred refers to the affirmation of conservative assumptions about immigration and the nature and morality of homosexual acts and cross-sex impersonation.

The next time a “progressive” starts caterwauling that conservatives are divisive, remember what “progressives” do. They actually threaten and attack conservatives. They continually spread the poisonous lie to immigrants and members of the “LGBTQ” community—including children and teens—that those who hold conservative moral and political beliefs hate them. And they concoct hateful, divisive hoaxes to foment more “progressive” hatred.

Here’s a list of hoaxes alleging anti-“gay” and/or racist incidents. I’m sure government schoolteachers will be covering these in their unit on political hoaxes. Taylor Volk was right. There is an epidemic—an epidemic of Leftist hoaxes designed to spread hatred of conservatives:

Jussie Smollett can’t block special prosecutor in alleged hate hoax case, judge rules (New York Daily News)

Jackson gay rights leader accused of burning down own home (The Detroit News)

Student Charged with Making Anti-Gay Threats against Herself (National Review)

Christian college student lied about harassment from Trump supporters (Gay Star News)

A black student wrote those racist messages that shook the Air Force Academy, school says (The Washington Post)

Lesbian couple accused of faking hate crime (KDVR.com)

Whole Foods: ‘Anti-Gay Cake’ a Hoax (Daily Beast)

Racist, anti-LGBT flier found outside Dallas nightclub appears to be hoax (DallasNews.com)

Woman sentenced to 90 days for hate-crime hoax (Wisconsin Gazette)

Was ‘Relentlessly Gay’ Homeowner’s Fundraiser Just A Hoax? (HuffPost)

‘I don’t want to die!’: Leading gay ‘marriage’ activist in Ohio faked his own abduction (LifeSiteNews)

Anti-gay hate crime at University of North Dakota fraternity deemed a hoax (The Washington Times)

Tennessee lesbian couple faked hate crime and destroyed own home with arson for insurance claim, jury rules (Daily News)

Man faked homophobic threats and firebombing, Utah police say (CNN)

Owner admits setting fire to gay nightclub in Oak Park (ABC7Chicago.com)

Transgender teen girl admits lying about sexual assault ‘hate crime’ in high school bathroom (LifeSiteNews.com)

Man who claimed he was beaten for being gay admits he made it all up after police receive video of him hitting HIS OWN head after back-flipping off a curb (Daily Mail)

Lesbian Waitress Exits Job After Anti-Gay Tipping Hoax (ABCNews)

A Branded Man (Townhall.com)

Why Would A Gay Teenager Commit Hate Crimes Against Herself? (BuzzFeed)

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Hate-Hoaxes-have-a-home…..mp3

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Several days ago, I took Tucker Carlson—a self-identifying Christian—to my teeny tiny virtual woodshed for congratulating homosexual Democratic strategist Richard Goodstein on his God-mocking, soul-destroying pseudo-marriage. Well, now I’m offering Carlson a hearty virtual pat on the back for Thursday night’s segment with Mark Steyn to whom I offer a bone-rattling pat on the back. Here’s an excerpt from their discussion of the loathsome Leftist tactic to oppress dissenters through control of language:

Steyn: “We have this immense cleansing of language. And [Leftists] are playing for big game here. I noticed about a decade ago, the government of Spain removed the words “mother” and “father” from its birth certificates and replaced them with “progenitor A” and “progenitor B”…. The fact is the abolition of “mother” and “father” is actually quite a big thing. And the Left is clever about this. They play for big prizes. One of the reasons I despair about the political Right is because we get all ‘Oohhh yeah, we’re trying to get a cut in capital gains tax through Congress!’ Meanwhile [Leftists] are abolishing the sexes. They’re ABOLISHING THE SEXES! That’s incredible!”

Carlson: “They’re re-ordering the natural order…. And the rest of us are either still playing these dumb low-stakes grievance politics… or arguing… the capital gains rate as if that really matters, because it doesn’t. Meanwhile no one’s getting married. The kids are all born out of wedlock. And  society collapses.”

Steyn: “One of the problems is… the Right gets head-faked into playing on the Left’s terms, in part because the Left changes the meaning of all the words, so you end up saying the same nonsense as the Left. People now can have their careers ruined because they ‘misgender’ someone on Twitter. We shouldn’t concede these things lightly…. This is actually industrial scale Orwellianism where you’re precisely inverting the meaning of language… so that people can’t even discuss certain topics anymore.”

Carlson: “When we give up these battles over words, we give up autonomy.”

I have long argued that there is no greater threat to our First Amendment protections than that posed by “LGBTQQAP” fascists. I have specifically said—and taken flak from RINOs for doing so—that the reductively called social issues are far more important than tax rates. And I have said countless times that under no circumstances should conservatives capitulate to language diktats. Do not ever mis-sex cross-sex masqueraders. Do not ever use pronouns that don’t match biological sex.

I would quibble with Steyn on one word. He said, “we shouldn’t concede these things lightly.” I would argue that we shouldn’t concede these things—period. It is neither loving nor “woke” to concede to the language edicts of the science-denying “trans” cult. (Pssst, come closer—you may also say “tr*nny,” just not on Facebook or the FB Overlords will come in the dark of night and throw you in the slammer.)

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Tucker-4.mp3

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

I suppose the title might take some explaining, but if the post can’t explain a title like that, then what are we all doing here?

Let me say at the outset that this is not a post about overt effeminacy—effeminacy of the lisping mincing kind. If that kind of thing were a virus, then the men who had it would be the carriers. What I want to talk about here is a far less visible form of effeminacy—by which I mean the effeminacy that refuses to respond appropriately to the overt kind. I am talking about the doctors who are afraid to address the virus. Doctors who are afraid to address the virus simply have a different form of the virus, and that is our great problem.

Not only is this second kind of effeminacy far less visible, it is also far more widespread. And it is the actual cause of all our troubles. It is the premier hazard in all of this.

The Effeminacy of Silence

We have had multiple stories we could use to illustrate how this works, three a day on average, but let me just pick one of the gaudier ones—drag queens in the kids’ section of our libraries. There are three basic kinds of characters in these stories. First, we have the drag queens grooming the little kids, and the lesbian librarians who set it all up. Second, we have a goodly number of Joe Six-packs, watching the news about this latest travesty as it comes on the 48 television sets at their favorite sports bar, with all of them saying, “What the hell?!” or the rough equivalent. And then third, we have the effeminacy of silence everywhere else.

You don’t need to be light in your loafers to be effeminate. You don’t need to teach a queer treasure workshop at Revoice. You don’t need to put on your face paint and wig, and go leer over the top of the book you are reading to prepubescent boys at the library. You don’t need to trail around clouds of epicene rainbow ambiguity.

All you really need is the effeminacy of silence. Head down, mouth shut. Every eye closed—no, wait. That’s a different drill, but not unrelated. Back to the point.

Our real problem, therefore, is not all the effeminacy we can see—and we are seeing quite a bit more of it, are we not? The problem is the vast multitude of effeminates who could stop it but who are letting this happen.

Masculine Love Fights

Suppose a man is walking downtown with his wife, and they are accosted by some thugs. The thugs take the wife’s purse, rifle through it, make rude comments to her, mess with her hair, and generally act like they are thinking of doing a whole lot worse than that. Suppose also that her husband is standing off to the side, saying things like, “Gentlemen, this is genuinely distressing. There is no need for this. I must register a protest in the strongest possible terms.” What we should do, confronted with a spectacle like that, is to say—in the strongest possible terms—that such a man doesn’t love his wife, no matter how emotionally distressed he might be over her unhappy circumstances.

And we can say this because love fights to defend what it loves.

…

Love doesn’t fight over everything, for example. If a man cuts ahead of a woman in line at CostCo, she doesn’t need to text her husband, who is out in the car, so that he might come in and fight for her honor. So, no, love doesn’t fight over trifles.

When it comes to pitched battles over the color of the paint for the church nursery, I am prepared to join with John Frame in lamenting some of the darker impulses of Machen’s warrior children. But with all these extra warriors running around, it would seem (at least to me), that we would have had some reinforcements who would be able to join us here on the wall at Helm’s Deep. So maybe they weren’t warrior children after all. Maybe they were just soteriological Calvinists with bad attitudes and nerf bats.

So, the sexual revolution has now worked its way into absolutely everything. Is that a trifle?

There is a line (between shouldn’t fight/should fight) that can be crossed, and real love instinctively understands where that line is. When that line is crossed, love stands up, love speaks up, and love does whatever is necessary. A studious and academic chin stroke of concern does not know very much about that line at all, except for the basic operational axiom that we “are not across it yet.” And that is because, for those trapped by the effeminacy of silence, we are never across it, by definition.

In the meantime, do not confound spiritual apathy with pastoral wisdom and concern. Being across that line might require action, and action entails risk.

Quoting Bierce Again

I have had occasion to quote Ambrose Bierce from The Devil’s Dictionary on this general subject before, and look at me now. I am going to do it again.

VALOR, n. A soldierly compound of vanity, duty and the gambler’s hope.

“Why have you halted?” roared the commander of a division at Chickamauga, who had ordered a charge; “move forward, sir, at once.”

“General,” said the commander of the delinquent brigade, “I am persuaded that any further display of valor by my troops will bring them into collision with the enemy.”

While at It, Let’s Quote Thornwell

While I am on the subject of fighting, this brings to my mind a comment made about Robert Breckenridge by the great Southern Presbyterian theologian, J.H. Thornwell.

“What he does, he does with his might. Where he loves, he loves with his whole soul; when he hates, he hates with equal cordiality; and when he fights, he wants a clear field and nothing to do but fight.”

So I can spare some of my adversaries some time googling, let me just acknowledge that Thornwell and Breckenridge were both Southern Presbyterians who supported the Confederacy, being from South Carolina and Kentucky respectively, and I would like to top off this free information by saying that I don’t feel any twinge in my conscience about referring to either one.

And so who around here wants a clear field, and nothing to do but fight?

It is fairly safe to exclude Machen’s modern warrior children, who are all down in the church nursery, arguing over the paint swatches.

Reasons

Are there reasons for such silence? There are always reasons for such silence. The one thing we can say about such reasons is that they at least are plainly heterosexual, because they multiply like crazy.

Let me speak in the person of those who will be enticed to offer such reasons.

I don’t want to be associated with nutcases . . .

The people we are up against are not slow with assigning epithets. Racist, bigot, misogynist, chauvinist, sexist, extremist, and more, and because there are genuine exemplars out there who do in fact answer to all those epithets, we in our sweet reasonableness want to make sure to telegraph to the bad guys our deathly fear of being lumped in with those right wing wastrels. “Please, sir! Whatever you do, don’t lump us in with the alt-right!” To which they reply (and this honestly comes as a big surprise to our Captains of Strategy), “Ha, ha! Look at these new alt-righters!”

I don’t want to be associated with those who have been successfully slandered as extremist . . .

There are others out there who are not extremists at all, and we know (down in the recesses of our hearts we know) that they are nothing of the kind. We know that they are innocent of the charge. They only have the reputation of extremism because they are merely living in faithful accordance with what was taught in every evangelical Sunday School in the country just three decades ago. The country has moved triumphantly toward the Abyss, and these troublers of Israel have refused to move with the times. “But if people as innocent as that can have their reputations ruined, then I too could have my reputation ruined if it ever came about that I—heaven forfend!—were to be seen on the same platform with any one of those faithful persons.”

Before it would be possible to share a platform with that Antipas character, he would have to demonstrate a little more flexibility.

Someday, when all this is over, and we are telling our war stories (around the oil stoves at our Free Speech Reeducation Sensitivity Camp), I might tell you the stories about how many people had been pressured by Big Eva (or in consideration of likely pressure from same) to drop their associations with us. It is quite a tacky business. Speakers for our conferences canceling because of pressure, speakers canceling on a conference because I was going to be there, someone backing out of writing a foreword, someone pressured into apologizing for quoting me, and the like. Couple this with the stories we have heard from people who associate with us anyway, with their tales about how they got “the treatment.”

Let’s just say that we are at the point where some up and comer is likely to catch far more grief for agreeing to speak at our Grace Agenda than he would if he spoke at Revoice. It is not the case that Big Eva doesn’t discipline. Of course they discipline. Not whether but which. It is just that they instinctively discipline men who are moving in a biblical direction, and they instinctively shelter men who are moving in an egalihomo direction. This is because—as should be obvious by now—it is far more desirable to them to have men in the ministry who sexually yearn to be in the sack with other men than it is to have men in the ministry who use hurtful neologisms like egalihomo.

If I were to take a stand now it would vindicate those people out there who have been urging me to take this stand for the last ten years . . .

Imagine a fellow who has been a senior statesman in the evangelical movement. He has fought many battles, and has won more than a few of them. But like many a decorated general before him, he has thought too much about the battles of the last war, and didn’t think fittingly about the battles of the next war. But he was warned about all of this, he was warned for years about it. To take a stand now would be to acknowledge that he should have listened to all those warnings from the nickel seats.

I would like to take a stand, but I have to say that outside observers don’t know the first thing about all the internal politics involved . . .

Granted, we don’t know the details. But some of us have an approximate idea, having been through some situations of our own. You have the adversaries who somehow got in, you have the compromised friends, you have the clueless friends, you have the compromised trustees, and you have the clueless trustees. And let’s not forget the donors who have to be led to believe that you are fighting more courageously than anybody actually is.

I know they fight dirty . . .

And there are some aspects of the old private life that could be taken wrong if placed in an unflattering light. Imagine if Peter were afraid that if he stood up to Annas and Caiaphas, they might tell how he denied the Lord. But Peter told everybody instead.

I have a hard time believing that my beloved institution could go hard left within the space of a few years . . .

So look around. What would you call it then?

My wife has reminded me of our mortgage, our connections, and my reputation, in that order . . .

It is better not to say this one out loud because it sounds too much like what it is.

Shrinking from the Fight

In short, whatever the reason, we have millions of Christian men who have become like the men of Babylon that Jeremiah once described.

“The warriors of Babylon have ceased fighting; they remain in their strongholds; their strength has failed; they have become women; her dwellings are on fire; her bars are broken” (Jeremiah 51:30, ESV).

It is all there. Ceased fighting. Holded up. Failed strength. Become like women. Dwellings on fire. Bars broken down. What about that does not apply to the PCA and to the SBC?

I remember the good old days when Presbyterians and Baptists used to vie with one another about who had a more biblical view of water baptism. Now they are vying with each other over whether Presbyterians can capitulate on same-sexualism faster than Baptists can capitulate on racial identities. Not that it matters in the long run. The hordes of identity politics are pouring through the Baptist gates, and the hordes of sexual compromises are pouring through the Presbyterian gates, but the end result seems to be that the neo-pagans will have taken all the Holy City. They will all feast tonight in the citadel.

You might say that your eschatology doesn’t permit that outcome, or that at least mine doesn’t. That’s as may be, but that is just another way of saying that our eschatology doesn’t permit us the luxury of refusing to fight.

And my point is not that our ostensible conservatives are fighting like a girl. The point is that our enemies are avowedly fighting like girls, with makeup and everything, and are doing so in a way that is kicking our butt.

In those memorable words of Burke, words that ring down through the centuries, “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to be wusses.”

This article was originally published at DougWils.com.

U.S. District Judge William Conley has ruled that Wisconsin cannot exclude gender-reassignment treatments from coverage under the Medicaid program. Judge Conley struck down a 1997 Department of Health Services directive that excluded “transsexual surgery” and hormonal treatment, ruling that denying the treatments constituted sex discrimination under the federal Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

The Judge misleadingly concluded that “there is now a consensus within the medical profession that gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition, which if left untreated or inadequately treated can cause adverse symptoms, such as anxiety, depression, serious mental distress, self-harm and suicidal ideation.” He added that insurance companies now “acknowledge that gender-confirming hormone and surgical treatments for gender dysphoria can be medically necessary.”

Wisconsin estimates that as many as 5,000 enrollees in its Medicaid program may have some form of gender confusion and that treating them could cost as much $2.1 million. The state contends that, contrary to the Judge’s ruling, there is no proven benefit to “transsexual surgery,” and that the scientific literature indicates that supporting gender confusion causes significant emotional harm in patients, up to and including attempted suicide.

A study published by the National Institutes of Health entitled “Transsexual attractions and sexual reassignment surgery: Risks and Potential Risks” states that “Physicians and mental-health professionals have a professional responsibility to know and communicate the serious risks, in particular risk of suicide, that are associated with SRS (sexual reassignment surgery).” The study notes that transsexual attractions in youth often resolve themselves on their own, and/or may be successfully treated through counseling.

The study warns that the idea that one’s sex is fluid and a matter of choice has taken on “cult-like” status:

“It is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges.” 

The study also notes,

“despite the “lack of contravening evidence that SRS conveyed any benefits compared with any unoperated-upon control groups, the practice of SRS has continued and has been extended into younger age groups.”

Sadly, there is a growing movement of former transsexuals who have learned the hard way that one’s sex is immutable. They have experienced “sex change regret” and have “de-transitioned” back to their true sex. One former transsexual relates the painful surgical process of repairing the damage done to his body: “I still have scars on my chest, reminders of the gender detour that cost me 13 years of my life. I am on a hormone regimen to try to regulate a system that is permanently altered.” Providentially, this man was able to experience love and marriage as God intended: “Eventually, I met a wonderful woman who didn’t care about the changes to my body, and we’ve been married for 21 years.”

Unfortunately, in his ruling, Judge Conley chose to ignore the existence of regretful former transsexuals as well as evidence demonstrating the dangers of attempting to change one’s sex.  By so doing, he is causing great harm to young people and others who are suffering from temporary and treatable gender confusion.

Illinoisans shouldn’t need a reminder of how committed Illinois politicians are to using tax dollars and government schools to indoctrinate other people’s children, but Governor J.B. Pritzker just gave them one last Friday when he signed the “LGBTQ” school indoctrination bill into law. This law, which takes effect in July 2020, requires that all children ages 5-18 in public schools be taught about the deviant sexual proclivities of men and women who have made some significant cultural contributions. Well, not all deviant sexual proclivities are included. Only the deviant sexual proclivities currently and publicly approved by homosexuals and cross-sex pretenders will be included—for now.

When the time is right, those who identify as polyamorous—er, I mean, “sexually non-monogamous”—or as hebephiles, ephebophiles, kinksters, zoophiles, or infantilists will claim their proclivities constitute a “sexual orientation” and will demand to have the “roles and contributions” of fellow deviants be included in curricula. They will one day rise up against the intolerant, ignorant, hateful bigotry that has resulted in their exclusion and oppression. And then those with other disordered identities—not necessarily sexual in nature—like “amputee-wannabes” (i.e., Body Integrity Identity Disorder) will plead for inclusion.

The reason all these groups will battle for the “roles and contributions” of people like themselves to be taught to our young, impressionable, and vulnerable children is that the central reason for teaching children about the disordered desires and deviant acts of cultural contributors is to normalize deviance. It happens in three ways:

1.) Exposing children repeatedly to a set of beliefs about, for example, homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation from age 5 on up desensitizes children to deviance.

2.) Positive portrayals of deviance from age 5 on up from teachers who are role models shape children’s moral views of deviance.

3.) When, for example, homosexuality or opposite-sex impersonation are associated with admirable qualities like achievement, creativity, intelligence, or bravery, the good feelings children have for these admirable qualities are transferred to homosexuality or opposite-sex impersonation. And that’s exactly what “progressives” seek.

Of course throughout human history there have been cultural contributors who experienced all manner of perverse and sinful desires and engaged in all manner of perverse and sinful acts, but historically teachers discussed only their contributions—not their perverse and sinful desires and acts. Now, however, a segment of the population has concluded that two forms of sexual activity are neither perverse nor sinful and are using government schools, tax money, and captive audiences to eradicate all dissenting beliefs.

Equality Illinois, Illinois’ foremost organization for promoting perversion, said this about Pritzker’s most recent offense against decency:

“We thank Gov. Pritzker for signing the Inclusive Curriculum Law and ensuring that LGBTQ youth will now see themselves in the history they are taught….” An inclusive curriculum can have positive, affirming benefits.

Since when is it the role of taxpayer-funded government schools to provide “affirming benefits” to children, and what specifically constitutes an “affirming benefit”? Before concluding that affirmation of homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation is a benefit, lawmakers and government-employed “educators” had to have concluded those phenomena are morally good, which is decidedly not their right to do in their professional roles when it comes to highly arguable moral issues.

Moreover, when teachers affirm the unproven, non-factual, subjective beliefs of the “LGBTQ” community, they are implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) condemning the beliefs of many people of faith.

Another of Illinois’ sexual deviance cheerleaders, Mary F. Morten, board chair of the deceptively named Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, said this about the “LGBT” indoctrination law:

Gaining a greater knowledge and understanding of the contributions of various underrepresented communities benefits all of us. 

Does inclusion require affirmation of all beliefs, ideas, feelings, and volitional acts? Are those who identify as polyamorists, ephebophiles, zoophiles, and kinksters part of the “underrepresented communities”? Why should homosexuals and biological sex-rejectors be the only sexually deviant groups to “see themselves in the history they are taught”?

Equality Illinois claims it “builds a better Illinois…. where everyone is treated with dignity and respect.” Don’t believe them. They want to ride roughshod over people of faith and deride them as hatemongers.

Remember too that this brazen effort to use government schools to promote “progressive” sexuality assumptions and eradicate the beliefs of countless people of diverse faith traditions is bolstered by the efforts of not only Equality Illinois and the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance but also by the Human Rights Campaign; the Illinois Human Rights Commission; the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, the National Education Association; and Pritzker’s recently appointed “trans” task force.

Conservatives, if you don’t have a plan to exit the state of Illinois, you’ve got 11 months to come up with a plan to exit Illinois public schools. The inept and corrupt miscreants who run the state want you to stay put for two reasons: 1. They want your money, and 2. If they weren’t able to kill your children in the womb, they want to corrupt their hearts and minds via government schools and your money.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Look-Whats-in-Store-for-Public-School-Students-in-Illinois_audio_01.mp3

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

A conservative meme circulating on Facebook recently asserted that a dystopian future isn’t in the future. It’s now and we’re living it.

For theologically orthodox Christians, and others who want to stay grounded in reality, the West has rapidly become a disorienting place to live. So a surreal article in the Chicago Tribune July 31 portraying workplace accommodations for “gender queer” and “nonbinary” employees as perfectly normal shouldn’t come as a surprise, even if it induces nausea.

It’s the kind of article that makes you despair not only about the collapse in traditional norms surrounding male and female, but also about the state of journalism. Written by a Tribune business reporter, the article is headlined “He, she or they: How companies are starting to address calls for a gender-neutral workplace.”

Devoid of critical thought, the article reads like a press release from an LGBTQ advocacy group. It’s fully sympathetic with those who “describe themselves as identifying as neither male nor female, identify as both, or reject gender labels entirely: gender fluid, gender neutral, gender queer or gender nonconforming.”

The reporter, Corilyn Shropshire, an experienced journalist with a master’s degree in social policy from the London School of Economics, apparently could think of no valid concerns about “nonbinary” employees causing tension and confusion in the workplace by insisting, among other things, that they be referred to individually with the pronoun “they,” normally used to refer to more than one person. The angle Shropshire took with her story was that all challenges posed by those who are “gender queer” should be met by catering to their whims. She wrote:

Redefining a workplace as some employees redefine themselves has meant challenges on both sides of the desk. For nonbinary workers, it’s explaining who you are to your bosses and colleagues and getting them to understand it, accept it and use the right pronoun. For employers, it’s making the office an environment that is accepting of nonbinary employees and in turn, changing workplace dress codes, the company directory, personnel manuals and longstanding forms that require employees to check off boxes identifying them as “male” or “female.”

What’s especially disconcerting is that at a paper the size of the Chicago Tribune, a story like this one goes through multiple layers of brainstorming and editing. No one thought this piece came across as lacking in how it presented a controversial issue? The story quotes not a single soul who finds pandering to “nonbinary” employees to be a troubling development.

The story quotes only proponents of “gender queer” accommodations, including an associate professor of history at Amherst College who complains that “human resources practices are usually very binary” and that for those who are “nonbinary,” “there’s not even a place for you to exist in the (HR) system.” But HR practices have historically been binary because until recently they tended to correspond with reality, that reality being that we are created male and female, and except in the cases of rare birth defects, the differences are obvious.

There also used to be an understanding that one’s personal proclivities and habits had to sometimes be put aside for the good of the organization, at least during work hours. Today the self reigns supreme, especially when it comes to sexuality, and all must bow down before it. The demands of “nonbinary” employees are so absurd that in a sane world such employees would be told to knock it off or encouraged to get help. That the business world and mainstream journalists now see such demands as legitimate is a disturbing sign that too many influential people in our culture are losing their minds. It’s not just those personally identifying as “gender queer” who are sick. It’s also their enablers.

The Tribune article relates the story of Avery Matthew, a young man who works at Brilliant Staffing in Chicago and pouts that “some colleagues still stumble over the appropriate pronoun to use” even though he’s been out as “nonbinary” for more than two years. “It becomes emotionally exhausting to have to correct people,” he says. But has Matthew tried thinking of his coworkers, who might be exhausted by having to remember during their busy day to use different pronouns with him or risk being labeled insensitive or worse? The reason it’s hard to remember is that it’s unnatural. The natural thing is to refer to people with words referring to their true essence as men and women. It wears on people to be forced into a lie and to be smooth in participating in the lie when there are many other stresses in the workday competing for their attention.

Matthew is also upset that there are no gender-neutral bathrooms at work. He uses both, but wants one he can “walk into without worrying about people’s reactions.” But of course there is one – the men’s restroom. Why can’t the male essence of his “gender fluidity” be content with that during work hours? What’s the big deal if he at least partly identifies as male? Unfortunately, the Tribune had no interest in digging deeper and pondering how immaturity and self-absorption might play in a role in the weird and nonsensical demands of the “gender queer.”

Dr. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, addressed gender confusion on his podcast The Briefing Aug. 9, calling on Christians to stand firm against calls to abandon reality. He said:

Christians have to speak sanity even if no one else does. It’s because our understanding of humanity and of identity begins with God, begins with a Creator who made us for his glory, who determined not only where and when we would be born, but that we would exist, putting us on this earth and giving us an identity as his gift. Of course, there is some extent to which every single individual develops a self and develops personality, but that is fundamentally different from understanding that we determine our own identity.

Too bad the Tribune didn’t see fit to give this perspective at least a passing mention. It’s one many Americans still hold, even if the Tribune treats them as if they don’t exist.

The ideological and moral idiocy of “woke” Americans has not yet reached its nadir, but it’s getting close.

A complaint was filed with the Illinois Human Rights Commission by a female minor who pretends to be a boy and her parents, Tracy and Michael Yates. She alleged that she was discriminated against based on her “gender identity” when Lake Park High School District 108 in Roselle, Illinois required her to change clothes behind a privacy curtain in the boys’ locker room. She wanted to be free to undress out in the open with her objectively male peers. To heck with their feelings or rights. In mid-July, the Illinois Humans Rights kangaroo court (KC) ruled that the district did discriminate against her, arguing that minors who identify as “trans” must be given unrestricted access to the locker rooms of opposite-sex peers. (I had to file a Freedom of Information Act request to get the ruling. It is not listed with other rulings on the Illinois Human Rights Commission website.)

The commissioners—all of whom are political appointees—voted 3-0 in favor of the student. It’s interesting to note that only one of the commissioners, Robert A. Cantone, is an attorney. The other two are Michael Bigger, an insurance agent, and Cheryl Mainor, a business owner. Cantone and Mainor are Democrats, and Bigger is a liberal Republican. These are paid positions. Cantone and Mainor, Pritzker appointees, are being paid $119,000 per year. Bigger, a Rauner appointee, is being paid $46, 960 (Bigger must be bitter). In the last full calendar year, Jan. 2018-Dec. 2018, the commission met 20 times, averaging out to less than two times per month. Nice gig if you can get it.

To be clear, the KC’s foul ruling means that, for example, boys who pretend to be girls must be allowed to use girls’ locker rooms in exactly the same ways girls are allowed to use them, which means schools may not require them to change their clothes behind privacy curtains or in privacy cubicles and may not prohibit them from taking nude showers. Same goes for girls who pretend to be boys. Schools must pretend that boys who want to be girls are girls and girls who want to be boys are boys.

This also means something even more profound and disturbing. Civilized societies—as opposed to primitive and pagan cultures—recognize, respect, and accommodate the natural feelings of modesty and desire for privacy that humans experience when engaged in private acts. Civilized societies have long understood intuitively that such feelings derive from objective physical embodiment as male or female. Objective biological differentiation—that is, the sexual binary—is the reason civilized societies created separate spaces for objectively male and female humans to engage in private acts in which bodies are exposed or intimate bodily functions are performed.

The KC’s decision, however, is based on the revolutionary and arguable “trans”-cultic assumption that biological sex has no relevance to undressing, showering, or engaging in bodily functions. In the view of the KC and “trans” cult, the sole relevant factor for determining private space usage is subjective feelings. They believe that if a teenage boy wishes he were a girl, he should be treated as if he were a girl. Private spaces become symbolic tools for affirming a delusion.

The natural and good desire people naturally develop to be separate from people of the opposite sex when naked, partially dressed, showering, or performing excretory functions can be either reinforced by culture or undermined. “Trans” cultists seek to undermine it in the service of their disordered desires, science-denying beliefs, and corrupt moral code. And they seek to impose their ideology by deracinating the rights of decent people.

What’s passing strange is how exactly the Illinois Human Rights Commission concluded that opposite-sex impersonating minors must be allowed unrestricted access to the locker rooms of opposite-sex peers since the Illinois Human Rights Act—which is state law—says this:

Facilities Distinctly Private. Any facility, as to discrimination based on sex, which is distinctly private in nature such as restrooms, shower rooms, bath houses, health clubs and other similar facilities for which the Department, in its rules and regulations, may grant exemptions based on bona fide considerations of public policy.

So, how did the commissioners rationalize their ruling that public schools must sexually integrate locker rooms?  Did they claim this exemption applies only to discrimination based on “sex,” and not to discrimination based on “gender identity,” which was the basis of the student’s complaint? If so, then the exemption is meaningless.

Or did they argue that the school had provided no “bona fide considerations of public policy” that would justify the exemption? If so, what considerations would pass muster? If the obvious commonsense truth that objectively male students should not be required to undress in the presence of an objectively female peer does not constitute a bona fide consideration, what would?

The questions are moot, though, because the school district decided to allow opposite-sex impersonators full and unrestricted access to the locker rooms of their opposite-sex peers even before the KC ruled. So, much for the integrity and backbone of that district’s school board and administration.

As the incoherent, doctrinaire “trans” ideology advances, it continues to twist into even more grotesque shapes. Society is no longer expected to affirm just the damnable lies that men can be trapped in women’s bodies, that women can have penises, and that men can give birth. Now we’re expected to affirm the damnable lie that because some people are uncomfortable with the superficial conventions (e.g., hairstyles, clothing styles, activities) associated with their biological sex or because they’re drawn to the superficial conventions associated with both sexes, the human species is not binary. Allowing a few intellectually, psychologically, and morally deluded cross-dressers into opposite-sex private spaces is morphing into allowing anyone to use any private spaces they wish at any time. Public acknowledgment of the sexual binary is being forcibly erased.

A “pronoun guide” published by American University’s Center for Diversity & Inclusion exposes the efforts of “trans”-cultists to erase the binary—well, to erase the freedom of Americans to acknowledge the reality of the “gender binary”:

Don’t assume the gender of a pronoun: she/her/hers are NOT “female” pronouns, and he/him/his are NOT “male” pronouns.

Can’t leave any words behind in the wake of the “trans” revolution that suggest the human species is sexually binary. No, siree, that won’t do at all.

“Trans”-cultists aren’t just inventing new pronouns to reflect their sex-erased world. In true Orwellian fashion, they’re also redefining existing words to erase all prior traces of a world that embraced reality. George Orwell warned us what this kind of language control is intended to do in his description of Newspeak:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all… a heretical thought… should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words….  This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever….

[T]he special function of certain Newspeak words… was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them…. [W]ords which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them.

How long before “trans”-cultists decide that “transwoman” is an epithet and must be banned? After all, they have proclaimed that men who masquerade as women are women. What if they decide that “transwoman”—which implies a distinction between fake-women and real women—is offensive and must be banned?

And who among us will resist sexually integrated private spaces and Newspeak mandates when the government tells us resistance is futile?

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Illinois-Human-Rights-Commission.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

Written by L. Brent Bozell III

The “gender reveal” has become a growing phenomenon in the world of social media. When expectant parents discover the gender of their unborn baby, they make a big announcement revealing the baby’s sex, with cakes and balloons and even pyrotechnics.

It’s a celebration of life, a desire to share the joyous news of the little boy or girl. Ah, but there’s the rub. A boy or a girl. In today’s perverted culture, this is wrong — very wrong.

It’s not surprising that in today’s war on the “gender binary,” major newspaper columnists appointed to write on “gender issues” (can you believe it) have written jeremiads attacking the very idea. Enter Monica Hesse of The Washington Post, whose July 31 article was headlined “Let’s have a gender-reveal party that reveals gender is a construct.”

In other words, stop doing “gender reveals,” because gender isn’t “assigned at birth.” It’s something for the child to decide later.

Hesse began by telling the tale of a mother named Jenna Karvunidis, who first made this trend viral by having a gender-reveal party with a pink cake. Now she regrets the whole thing. Karvunidis recently composed a follow-up post about her daughter Bianca — now just “Bee” — whose female gender she’d celebrated. “PLOT TWIST,” she wrote on Facebook. “The world’s first gender-reveal party baby is a girl who wears suits!”

Karvunidis included a family photo of “Bee,” now wearing a white suit and an androgynous haircut. This regretful mother declared her fealty to the gender-crushing revolution: “Who cares what gender the baby is? I did at the time because we didn’t live in 2019 and didn’t know what we know now — that assigning focus on gender at birth leaves out so much of their potential and talents that have nothing to do with what’s between their legs.”

Hesse was delighted by this confession, since she “was already buried in gender-reveal footage, planning to write a column about the perverse pleasure of watching the ones that fail.”

She hates the gender-reveal people.

Hesse began the article by admitting she gleefully watched four times the video of a couple in Australia celebrating with blue exhaust fumes, but then the car burst into flames and was destroyed. She also enjoyed another video “in which a man attempts to hit a pink-powder-filled balloon off a golf tee, and instead thwacks his buddy in the groin. Or another, of a guy accidentally hitting a softball into his wife’s face.”

At The Washington Post, civility dies in schadenfreude.

Hesse hates how these parties are often “hypermasculine” events, with axes and chainsaws and footballs. Or there was the off-duty Border Patrol agent who caused a 47,000-acre forest fire after he “shot a blue-dust-filled target that exploded more thoroughly than planned.”

The Post columnist angrily claimed that “the entire event is based on remarkable hubris: Parents try to concoct a memorable moment out of exhaust pipes, only to have nature inform them that there are no carefully concocted moments when it comes to raising children.” Parents must learn today’s lesson on “the limits of binary color choices.” Your child may “choose” their gender as they grow, and parents must be expected to promote that choice, and whatever mind-numbing terminology follows.

The cultural deconstructionist left is always reminding us that yesterday’s religiously informed “patriarchy” isn’t the only orthodoxy that pushes a set of manners and expectations on the culture. They have toppled God, and put the solipsistic anarchy of gender politics in His place.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

What grounds human dignity? Without the answers that the Christian ideas of inherent dignity and equality provide, the culture turns to sex.

In the first session at the 2019 IFI Worldview Conference, John Stonestreet spoke on what it means to be human. In his second lecture, available here, he speaks on the sexual revolution and how culture has completely sexualized their answer to what it means to be human. After identifying the three major ideas of the sexual revolution, Stonestreet presents the redeemed reality of these ideas in light of the human dignity God has given us.

Please watch and share this video (1 of 5) with your family. This presentation is a great opportunity for group study and discussion.

You can watch this presentation on the IFI YouTube channel, and find the other worldview sessions here.

Background

John Stonestreet serves as president of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. He’s a sought-after author and speaker on areas of faith and culture, theology, worldview, education and apologetics. John is the daily voice of BreakPoint, the nationally syndicated commentary on  the culture founded by the late Chuck Colson.

Before coming to the Colson Center in 2010, John served in various leadership capacities with Summit Ministries and was on the biblical studies faculty at Bryan College (TN). John has co-authored four books: A Practical Guide to Culture, Restoring All Things, Same-Sex Marriage, and Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview. John holds degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (IL) and Bryan College (TN). He and his wife, Sarah, have four children and live in Colorado Springs, CO.

You can follow him on Twitter @jbstonestreet.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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