Written by Peter Heck

Every time this comes up, and every time I choose to write about it, I can already predict the emails and the responses I’m going to get: “How dare you compare those behaviors!”  “This is comparing apples and oranges!”  “These things aren’t at all the same and it’s sick to compare them!”

So before I write another word, let me try to preempt that by making this abundantly clear: I am asking a question in this article, I am not making an accusation.  This is about me asking a group of people who have told me repeatedly that their concept of human sexuality is far more moral and just than God’s.  I don’t agree with them, but it’s what they repeatedly tell us all.  So if that’s the case – if they know better than the God of the Bible – then what I’m about to ask should be easy to articulate.

Here’s the story that prompts my question:

Two cousins who say they are in love with each other have created an online petition calling for the state of Utah to allow them to get legally married. “My first cousin and I have been in love with each other our whole lives but we are prohibited from marrying in the state of Utah where we live,” Angela Peang writes in the petition. “We believe that the law is outdated and it needs to be changed so that we can socially legitimize our love.”

Angela goes on to explain that she and her first cousin Michael Lee have loved each other romantically for a long time, dating back to childhood.  She writes,

“We just always played a lot,” Peang remembered of her childhood interactions with Lee. “We went into a closet and we were kissing and dancing together. It just felt really natural.”

That wasn’t the only time.  As they got older they were caught kissing by family members and were kept apart from that time forward.  Both of them married other people, had families, and ended in divorce.  They have now reconnected, and are wanting to have their marriage recognized in the state of Utah.

So here’s my question to those who have for years called me a bigot for having moral boundaries on the institution of marriage: is this okay?

Yes, this is incest.  It’s the textbook definition of it.  But why is that wrong?

1.)  These are consenting adults.

2.)  It is clear that their attraction is real and they desire to be together.

3.)  They both acknowledge they didn’t “choose” their feelings, it was “natural.”

4.)  While some might object on the basis of what could happen to potential children, that issue is unrelated to their love.

Obviously one could make the argument that incest is illegal in Utah.  But that’s what I’m asking: why is that okay?  Why is it not discriminatory?  Why is this not an infringement on the right of consenting adults who love one another?  Why is this not bigotry?  Why is this not an affront to #LoveIsLove.

I’m not equating LGBTQ individuals with incestuous individuals.  They all have different and disparate attractions and identities.  I am asking why incestuous people can’t use these same arguments effectively to protect their relationships?  LGBT behavior used to be illegal too.  Gay marriage used to be illegal too.  But #LoveWon, didn’t it?

Why has it not yet won for the incestuous?  It’s a serious question and one that the cultural revolutionaries who harshly judged and shamed those of us who had moral boundaries for the institution of marriage must be the ones now forced to answer.

This article was originally published at PeterHeck.com.

I don’t know about you, but I find God’s instructions in Deuteronomy 6:6-7 both challenging and convicting. It’s in this passage that God commands parents to teach their children in His ways diligently—as we sit at home, walk along the way, rise up, lie down, and so on.

In other words, we’re basically supposed to be training our children in the ways of God all the time. It’s a constant, unending priority. If you’ve got kids, one of your primary job descriptions as a human being is to be your child’s diligent teacher.

It’s a responsibility I want to take seriously, yet I fail way too often. I feel I rarely live up to the level of diligence described in this passage.

This was brought to mind recently when I attended a homeschool convention. Listening to one of the speakers, I was reminded again that I need to do a better job training and discipling my kids. Right there, I asked God to help me become a Deuteronomy 6 Dad.

The next day was Sunday, and I had frankly forgotten about that quick prayer offered up the day before. But God, of course, hadn’t.

As my wife and I spent a few minutes in the afternoon planning the upcoming week, we heard crying from upstairs where three of our children (ages six, five, and three) were playing. I went up to discover Katherine, the three-year-old, laying on her back crying, and Timothy, the five-year-old, standing unconcernedly nearby. There had been an accident of some sort—mostly Timothy’s fault, from what I could discern—and Katherine had been hurt.

One of the qualities I want to instill in my boys is care for others—particularly those younger or weaker than themselves. So to see Timothy standing by doing nothing while his sister was crying (as a result of his carelessness no less), showed me that he hadn’t taken this lesson to heart yet.

And this was when God began to answer my prayer from the day before.

Instead of getting upset and railing at Timothy for his carelessness and thoughtlessness, I sat down and began to talk about how we should take care of others. I talked about how Jesus wants us to treat each other. We talked about the Good Samaritan and how he had shown love to the man left for dead by the road, and if God wants us to love even strangers, how much more should we love our own family?

It was one of those moments when I actually felt like I was handling this Dad role pretty well.

When I went back downstairs, I remembered my prayer from the day before. God, I felt, had just answered that prayer.

No, one good conversation with my boys about loving their sister doesn’t make me a Deuteronomy 6 Dad—not yet. But every teachable moment I seize brings me that much closer to the ideal I want to reach.

I want to keep asking God for His help in becoming a father who takes Deuteronomy 6 seriously, and I want to keep taking advantage of the teachable moments life brings my way. I also want to be ready to create teachable moments, speaking of God and His truth on a regular basis with my kids.

The truth is, if we don’t teach our children how to know, love, and serve God, who will? Yes, we hope they’ll learn these things at church, but God gave my wife and me the primary responsibility. The church is a support—not a crutch. And the fact is, if my wife and I aren’t doing our job at home, it’s unlikely the church will be able to succeed in a couple of hours a week.

Dads (and Moms, too), let’s take our responsibility seriously. Ask God to help you become a Deuteronomy 6 Dad. It’s a prayer He’d love to answer.

Then keep your eyes open for the teachable moments God will bring your way.

IFI works diligently to serve the Christian community in Illinois with email alerts, video reports, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences and cultural commentaries. We do not accept government funds nor do we run those aggravating popup ads to generate funds.  We depend solely on the support of readers like you.

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

Speaking at a recent conference on Social Justice and the Gospel, Dr. Voddie Baucham, Jr. addressed the meaning of social justice and explains that the term doesn’t mean what we think it means. Dr. Bauchman is a Dean of Theological Education at African Christian University in Zambia.

He begins by quoting Dr. William Young, who defines social justice as the redistribution of advantages and resources to disadvantaged groups to satisfy their rights to social and economic equality.  In theological terms, God demands justice, and therefore injustice is “sin.”  Accordingly, any disagreements cannot be allowed as this would be “injustice” and contrary to the Divine will.

But It’s important to remember that social justice is not about whether the individual experiences success.  It is always about the group: it is important to identify disadvantaged groups that require justice.  And it’s not about numbers.  Take women, for example.  They comprise more than half the population but are still considered disadvantaged.

This leads to the concept of “identity politics,” i.e., what politicians will do for “our group.”  If some group is not doing well – never mind any particular individual – we need to find out who is to blame.  There needs to be a redistribution of resources to address any disparities.

If we claim that the individuals in any particular group are responsible for their own disadvantages, that would amount to the dreaded accusation of “victim blaming.”  In fact, social justice assumes that those in “privileged” groups – as, for example, white people, who are successful, financially or otherwise, have acquired those resources illegitimately.  According to social justice, the answer is to redress the perceived grievances.  The fact that extremely high-paying professional sports is dominated by players of another color is an anomaly that is ignored or considered just.

Social justice demands that resources that are “unjustly” gained be transferred to those of an underrepresented minority.  Accordingly, a white person who started from nothing and became successful means nothing and is still considered the unjust one.  On the other hand, someone from a minority family of financial means deserves whatever privileges they enjoy.

Thus, central to the idea of social justice is the idea of “redistributive justice.”  According to its adherents, only this can guarantee genuine democracy.

Dr. Baucham cites the largest online professed Christian community that is claiming to fight for social justice.  The site, Faithful America, lists their victories and exploits in fighting for social justice.  Topping the list is their fight against a company called Hobby Lobby, which has stood for Christian values.  Number two on the list of Faithful America’s list of “victories” is convincing Google to delist World Vision, a worldwide Christian ministry.  Third on the list is their success in forcing MSNBC to drop the Family Research Council, which fights for Christian values in Washington D.C.

A pattern is beginning to emerge.  Faithful America also defended a pastor who was defrocked for performing a same-sex wedding in violation of the stated principles of his denomination.  If we recall the social justice assertion that injustice is “sin,” then standing for traditional marriage and refusing to sanction gay marriage is considered “sinful” behavior.

According to Dr. Baucham, the social justice movement centers on three main areas.  The first is minority equality; the second is feminism and women’s rights; and the third is the LGBTQA+ movement, which stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, the allies of the aforementioned, and anyone other aberrant sexuality not on this list.

Dr. Baucham refers to the classic gay propaganda strategy book of the last century, After the Ball, How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Homosexuality in the 1990’s.  The book describes three strategies to accomplish this goal: desensitizing, jamming, and conversion.  All involve acclimatizing “normal” heterosexuals to seeing – and eventually accepting – LGBTQA+ people by “bombarding” them through television, movies, the media, and the educational system to “getting used to” their abnormal lifestyle.  Those who resist are to be identified with neo-Nazis and the KKK, etc.

Thus, it has come about that those who hold to marriage and family as historically understood have become the enemies of “social justice.”  If such a thing can be imagined, it has come to the point where the views of traditionalists are considered “sinful,” and worthy only of an unforgivable disapproval until if and when they “see the light” and not only tolerate but celebrate the homosexual lifestyle.

This video and his message is well worth your attention:

IFI Worldview Conference

On Saturday, March 16, 2019, the Illinois Family Institute will be hosting our annual Worldview Conference. This coming year, we will focus on the “transgender” revolution. We already have commitments from Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians; Walt Heyer, former “transgender” and contributor to Public Discourse; Denise Schick, Founder and Director of Help 4 Families, and daughter of a man who “identified” as a woman; and Doug Wilson, who is a Senior Fellow of Theology at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, and pastor at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho .

The Transgender Ideology:
What Is It? Where Will It Lead? What is the Church’s Role?
Click here for more information.

Lessons about marriage from an early morning hunt for clean socks.

I wasn’t a happy man Monday morning.

It was one of my usual mornings to go to the gym, but I had a problem: I couldn’t find any socks. I looked in my dresser drawer. None. I rummaged through some of yesterday’s dirty laundry in the hopes that I could recycle an old pair. No luck. Finally I managed to find a fresh pair after digging through one or two baskets of clean clothes that hadn’t been put away yet.

During the ordeal (which really only lasted a few minutes), I found myself getting frustrated, even angry. I just wanted to be able to get to the gym and do my workout, and precious minutes were ticking by while I ransacked the house looking for a simple pair of socks.

And who was I angry with? My sleeping wife. I wasn’t angry because she was asleep while I was looking for socks. I was upset because if she had just done a better job of keeping up with the laundry over the weekend, there would be clean socks in my drawer and I wouldn’t have to waste time hunting for them.

In other words, I was selfishly thinking that I shouldn’t have to deal with this problem because my wife should have done a better job taking care of things.

Ouch.

Should and shouldn’t. Whenever we find these words cropping up in our internal monologue, they serve as clues that we’re dealing with (probably unhealthy) expectations. “She should have done this. I shouldn’t have to put up with that.” Expectations are often rooted in pride or an inflated sense of our own importance and are a quick route to disappointment, frustration, and anger. Unmet expectations can be a huge cause of friction in any relationship, but perhaps especially in marriage.

Getting back to yesterday morning. When I realized what I was unconsciously thinking, my anger deflated pretty quickly. The previous day had been Sunday. We had been to two church services (morning and evening), and the afternoon in between had been short. We have four kids ages six and under, so there’s no shortage of responsibilities to claim our attention.

In other words, who was I to get upset that my wife hadn’t been able to manage all of that and make sure I had clean socks in my drawer? In getting angry—albeit briefly—I had revealed the arrogance of my heart by thinking that I shouldn’t have to deal with something because my wife should have done more. God, in His grace, revealed this wrong thinking to me and I was able to move on in a better frame of mind instead of holding onto the anger and frustration.

(By the way, lest anyone reading this scold me for thinking the laundry is my wife’s job, I do try to help with it. And I didn’t spend my Sunday afternoon in front of the TV while my wife cooked dinner, did the dishes, and took care of the kids. We were both fruitfully occupied most of the afternoon—just not taking care of the laundry!)

My point in sharing all of this is threefold.

First, we all need to be aware of our expectations and manage them carefully. Expectations are tricky things, and as I noted earlier, they can cause enormous friction in our relationships. Beware of those words should and shouldn’t. I should get to do this. He shouldn’t have done that. I shouldn’t have to put up with this. She should have treated me differently. Even if your expectations are essentially reasonable (unlike mine yesterday morning), you can’t control what others do. Fuming about unmet expectations and allowing them to ruin our day is neither profitable for us nor helpful for our relationships. We should either forgive it, or find a constructive way to communicate about it. (And if a relationship is in serious trouble, outside help may be in order.)

Second, we would all do well to pay more attention to our internal monologue.¹ We all talk to ourselves every day. Sometimes we tell ourselves the truth, but too often we don’t. My internal monologue yesterday morning, rooted in pride, was telling me that I shouldn’t have to deal with this problem. That was a lie, and the sooner we can catch ourselves in these lies and correct them with the truth, the better off we’ll be. Pay attention to what you’re telling yourself, and start replacing lies with truth!

Lastly, a word to other husbands out there. Let’s face it: most of us wouldn’t want to trade places with our wives and deal with everything they do on a daily basis (especially if you have young children!). Even if you’re a great guy and provide ample help with household tasks, chances are pretty good that your wife takes care of more things on a given day than you imagine. So let’s give them grace and not get ourselves worked up about the small stuff.

Including missing gym socks.

¹For more on this topic, see Learning to Tell Myself the Truth by William Backus. In his chapter on anger, he shares more extensively about expectations and paying attention to words such as should, ought, etc.

It wasn’t so long ago that such a thing would be unthinkable: a standing ovation for abortion in the New York State Senate chamber with the passage of legislation permitting abortion for any reason up until the moment of birth. Already in New York City, one in three babies are aborted. The bill goes so far as to drop the requirement that doctors perform abortions and decriminalizes acts of violence that result in the deaths of unborn babies. In other words, if an unborn baby dies in the commission of an act of violence against his or her mother, the perpetrator will no longer be held criminally liable for the baby’s death.

So much for “safe, legal and rare.” With this patently facetious mantra, it took Democratic president Bill Clinton only two days into his presidency to reverse policies restricting abortion instituted by his Republican predecessors Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

Virtually all Democratic candidates in recent memory, from candidates for president on down, have campaigned on their commitment to preserving the legal right to kill the unborn. It wasn’t always this way. In 1937, in response to doctors performing abortions during the Great Depression, the National Federation of Catholic Physician’s Guild issued a statement condemning abortion. In those days the opponents of abortion were more likely to be Democratic than Republican. President Roosevelt’s New Deal drew considerable support from the Catholic Church’s desire to protect and nurture all life–including the unborn.

Some of the first vocal proponents of abortion were, surprisingly, Republicans. Moderate Republican governor Nelson Rockefeller shepherded through his state’s abortion reform law in 1970. In 1967 in California, that icon of conservatives, a then “moderate” Ronald Reagan, signed a similar bill loosening restrictions on abortion. But the issue was gaining steam, and by the 1970’s conservative Republicans, campaigning on opposition to abortion after the disastrous Roe vs. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1973, were able to wrest control of the GOP.

The battle lines were drawn in 1976 when the first presidential election since Roe vs. Wade brought the issue to the forefront. Democratic candidate Jimmy Carter, despite his Evangelical Christian bona fides, walked a tightrope trying to appeal to both sides. From then until the present, Democratic politicians have declared, despite massive evidence to the contrary, that they only wish to have abortion “safe, legal, and rare.” In 1976, the outrage against such duplicitous arguments produced a successful effort to end Medicaid funding for abortion with the Hyde Amendment, the first significant legislative victory for anti-abortion activists after Roe vs. Wade.

While abortion activists argue for unrestricted access to abortion throughout pregnancy, polls show that support for late-term abortions continues to decline, with a paltry 13 percent of Americans supporting abortion during the third trimester. The enthusiastic crowds at the annual March for Life are further evidence of the widespread desire to protect innocent human life in the womb. The most recent March for Life saw an unprecedented show of political firepower, with addresses by the president, vice-president and House speaker, all heralding the gains that the movement has made under the presidency of Donald Trump, who stated: “Under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the right to life.”

The new Democratic mantra: “While personally opposed to abortion, the U.S. Supreme Court is the law of the land, and thus I must respect Roe vs. Wade” is beginning to wear thin. As we lament the 45^th anniversary of that calamitous legal decision, the effect of this assertion wanes and the abortion issue is becoming an even more highly charged issue.

Democratic leaders have used the 45th anniversary of Roe v. Wade to reiterate their support for legal abortion and launch new onerous legislation in Illinois and other states–hoping to expand so-called “reproductive rights” and access at the expense of innocent human lives. Now is the time for people of faith–Democrats and Republicans alike–to raise their voices in defense of the most vulnerable among us: the unborn.

Written by NetNanny.com

Social media today is seemingly inescapable and the same holds true for Snapchat. As one of the top contenders of most loved social media platforms for teens, it is important for parents to understand this photo sharing app before deciding if it’s appropriate for your own kids.

While YouTube and Instagram still dominate the social media space among teens, Snapchat comes in a close third place with 69 percent of U.S. teens using the platform according to a 2018 Pew Research Center study. Snapchat isn’t inherently dangerous right off the bat, but parents will want to ensure that their teens are safe and responsible while using the app.

WHAT IS SNAPCHAT?

Snapchat is a photo and video sharing app that allows users to communicate with friends, family, and followers by snapping and sharing photos in an instant. Photos and videos can be shared with selected friends or can be posted to your Story, both disappearing after a set amount of time.

Some of the most popular features include Snapchat filters, stickers, and Bitmoji integration that grant users even more fun ways to express themselves. The app encourages users to keep snapping by using Snapchat emojis, streaks, and trophies.

Learn more about all of Snapchat’s features:

• Filters: Snapchat automatically updates facial filters that can be used while taking photos and videos. These do everything from smoothing your skin to giving you a flower crown or turning you into a dog. Snapchat has now even created filters that can be used on your pets.

• Stickers: Stickers can be added to photos and videos as well to add the time, temperature, how fast you’re moving, or any number of cartoons or GIFs.

• Bitmoji: Connecting Snapchat with your Bitmoji allows you to use your personal emoji as your avatar and use it to decorate your Snaps.

• Emojis: Snapchat emojis appear next to the names in your friends list, telling users which friends they snap with the most.

• Streaks: A streak fire emoji and number also appear next to the names in your friends list, showing you how many consecutive days in a row that you’ve snapped each other.

• Trophies: Trophies are earned and kept in your virtual case for doing any number of tasks or using features such as sending a video without sound, using the zoom feature, or sending a Snap with a temperature filter.

• Chat: Users have the option of chatting with friends either one-on-one or via a group chat. Parents should know that chats, like photos and videos, are self-destructing once a user navigates away from the chat unless saved beforehand. Users have the option of updating their settings so that unsaved chats do not delete immediately, but after 24 hours.

• Snap Map: In Snap Map users can view public Snaps for major events as well as see the exact location of friends. The Snap Map option can be turned off by switching to Ghost Mode in settings.

• Memories: Memories is a personal album of Snaps and stories that you save for easy sharing in the future or for year-to-date flashbacks. Users wishing to save a Snap will need to manually save them to Memories but Stories can be saved to Memories automatically by adjusting your settings.

• Discover: The Discover page lets users watch their friends’ Story as well as public Stories and Shows.

• Shazam: By pressing and holding on the camera screen, users can enable Shazam to pick up what song is playing to include in their Snap.

FIVE THINGS EVERY PARENT NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT SNAPCHAT

1.) Set Privacy Settings Ensure that your kids utilize the privacy settings available on Snapchat. Users are able to determine who can contact them, view their story, see their location, or if they appear in quick add. Parents may want to edit these settings to only allow friends access to this information as this will significantly limit any contact with strangers.

2.) Talk About Sharing and Screenshots Discuss with your children the significance of screenshots and what is and is not appropriate to share. Even though Snaps posted to Stories disappear after 24 hours, that won’t stop someone from taking a screenshot of a Snap and saving that photo to their own camera roll.

3.) Keep Chats Clean Screenshots are not limited to only photo and video Snaps but can be taken of chats as well. Encourage your kids to keep comments PG.

4.) Monitor Use and Take Part It is ok to monitor your kids’ Snapchat activities. The nature of this app doesn’t make it easy to monitor use but parents are able to keep an eye on account passwords, contacts, private messages, and memories. Parents may even consider creating their own account to snap with their kids and keep an eye on their Stories.

5.) Take a Tech Timeout Snapchat can be a lot of fun but social media in general needs an occasional timeout. Set offline boundaries that work for your family such as limiting phone use during family activities, mealtimes, or before bed.

WHAT HAPPENS TO A SNAPCHAT PHOTO?

When users send Snapchat photos they are able to select for how long they want their photo to be able to viewed before they disappear. Users can make viewing time 10 seconds and under or allow their photo or video to be viewed for an unlimited amount of time.

It is worth noting that users can replay received Snaps once more before they disappear. Once recipients leave the photo and their friends list, the received photo cannot be accessed again.

Stories are viewable to all of your friends and last 24 hours before disappearing. Snapchat stories can be deleted prior to this 24-hour time period ending; after deletion your friends will no longer be able to view them.

Despite it’s disappearing nature, Snapchat users are able to take screenshots when viewing photos and videos. Senders are notified when someone takes a screenshot of their Snaps but they have no control over recipients doing this and can’t stop them from taking a screenshot or sharing it with others.

IS SNAPCHAT SAFE FOR KIDS?

Even though Snapchat is wildly popular, not all of Snapchat’s features are appropriate for younger users. This app is recommended for mature teens but knowing the facts, parents should be able to decide if this app is right for their child.

Photo sharing and disappearing photos and texts can be risky when it comes to safety and transparency. Snapchat isn’t made specifically to hide things like vault apps that create secret folders for hiding photos and sensitive content are, but rather to promote living and sharing in the moment. Because of this, parents will not be able to monitor sharing and communication effectively.

Parents who believe their children are ready to use this app should discuss with them what sort of photos and videos are appropriate to send and receive and remind them that even though Snaps will disappear, this does not prevent another user from taking a screenshot.

Snapchat also features Snap Map, allowing users to view the exact location of their friends; a feature that will be unsafe for most kids and teens. A user’s status on the Snap Map can be turned off in settings by switching to Ghost Mode.

Snapchat is a great way to for your kids to stay in touch with their friends and share what they’re up to but unfortunately there are no Snapchat parental controls available.

Monitoring your child’s app usage and online activity can be overwhelming at times but using a parental control software like Net Nanny can support your efforts in keeping your children safe online. Snapchat can be a lot of fun, however it is important for parents to understand the app and know what they can do to make the app a safer place for their children. By utilizing some of these safeguards your teens cans start snapping away with less worry.

This article was originally published by NetNanny.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported late last year that Americans aren’t having enough babies to replace themselves. In fact, a record one in five American women will never have children, and those who do will, on average, never exceed two. As a result, the death rate is outpacing the birth rate, which means—except for immigration—the U.S. has joined many developed countries on the long, slow road of population decline.

That’s bad news. Not having enough children as a society has costs that are hard to appreciate on the individual level. We know from examples like Japan and much of Europe that aging countries become economically top-heavy, especially those that promise extensive government services to the elderly. This results in runaway aging and population decline, and negatively impacts every sector of the economy except for maybe healthcare, depending on how you look at that one. It also places heavier and heavier burdens on the shoulders of an ever-shrinking workforce of young people, which leaves them even less likely to have kids.

On a deeper level, young members of a graying society lose hope for the future, or stop planning for it altogether. In Japan, this hopelessness manifests as one of the highest rates of suicide among youth in the developed world.To be clear, the United States is not Japan, but as Jonathan Last writes in his book, “What to Expect When No One’s Expecting,” there’s no example in history of a shrinking society experiencing long-term prosperity.

Given the impending demographic disaster, you might think this would be the wrong time to discourage people from having children. But some are doing just that. Citing numbers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the website Market Watch recently warned that the cost of raising children has grown an unbelievable 40 percent since the year 2000.

According to those USDA estimates, the average American parent spends almost a quarter million dollars raising a single child, not including college expenses. This translates to huge figures for families who have four, five, or even more kids. If these numbers are correct, a minivan-sized family will spend something on the order of a million dollars just to get their children through high school.

But I’m not buying those numbers, at least not totally. The USDA’s estimates don’t take into account things like shared living space, hand-me-down clothes, grandparents pitching in, or other common ways parents have learned to save money.

Such outlandish estimates of the cost of kids are now cited in article after article, making the case that few Americans can really afford kids. CNBC joined in recently with a piece called “Here’s how much money you save when you don’t have kids.” To make matters worse, they cited a study purporting to show parents are less happy than non-parents.

All of this bean-counting in the government and secular media comes at a moment when the thing we need most is babies. Even sadder, it coincides with one of the hardest pro-abortion legislative pushes we’ve seen in decades. Our culture is simply less welcoming to little lives than ever before.

And yet those of us who have kids and those who desperately long and pray to have kids know how fundamentally skewed these cost-benefit analyses are, even if their math was better. Because children are priceless, and as my friend Dr. Ben Mitchell says, anytime you put a price tag on something priceless, you cheapen it.

The question of whether kids are too expensive raises much bigger worldview questions, such as, “what’s the purpose of life?” and “what’s the good life?” Children aren’t a bucket list item, like paragliding or visiting Paris. It’s an others-centered way of living—a radical statement of hope for the future—a declaration that you and I are not the center of the universe, and that the here and now is not the only thing that matters.

In a society already suffering from a birth dearth, the question isn’t whether we can afford to have kids. It’s whether we can afford not to.

Written by WeZift.com

Are you unsure which apps are safe for your kids and teens to use? Screen time can be difficult to manage for families and the biggest question is which apps are appropriate for kids to download onto their smartphones and tablets. Not to worry – we’ve compiled a list of over 30 dangerous apps that kids and teens are using. Take a look at some of the most popular apps that are not recommended for kids:

Dangerous Messaging Apps for Kids

Messaging apps are a good way for kids to stay in contact with friends, families and peers. If there are not strong privacy settings enabled or content moderators, there is a possibility of kids being exposed to strangers and possibly mature content.

• GroupMe
  GroupMe is a group messaging app where users can chat with large numbers of friends or strangers.

• Chatous
  The Chatous app randomly matches users to strangers across the world.

• Oovoo
  Oovoo is a free messaging and video calling for one-on-one chats or group chats with up to 8 users.

Dangerous Live Streaming Apps for Kids

Live streaming can be a fun way for kids to express themselves and see what their friends are doing. However, it can also be intrusive and unsafe for children and teens who may come into contact with online strangers or mature content. Live streaming apps are best used with parental supervision.

• Tik Tok
  Similar to the popular (and now defunct) Musical.ly and Live.ly apps, Tik Tok has rolled the most popular features from those apps into this new live streaming video app.

• Live.Me
  The Live.Me app allows users to connect with people all over the world to live stream, watch videos and chat.

• Bigo
  Bigo is another popular live streaming app where users connect through live video.

Dangerous Hookup Apps for Kids

Dating and hookup apps are not recommended for teenagers or kids. In fact, most dating apps require their users to be 17 years of age or older in order to use their services, however most dating apps have little or no age verification and many rely on location tracking to pair up matches. For kids, this can be dangerous because strangers can easily be aware of your child’s location and can have access to view/share photos and chat with them directly.

• Down
  Down is a new dating app where users can connect to find romantic matches or hookups. It is not intended to be used by people under the age of 17.

• Badoo
  Badoo is a chat and dating app where users are connected based on crossed geo-location paths. This app is also not intended for minors, but does not have strict age verification.

• Tinder
  Tinder is a very popular dating app for adults focused on geo-location and a swipe system to match users. This app is also relatively easy for teens to use even though it is rated for users over 17.

Download a copy of the complete list of the most dangerous teen apps that parents should know about for 2019.

This article was originally published at WeZift.com.

The U.S. Supreme Court of the United States has consistently upheld the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children within the guarantee of liberty found in the U.S. Constitution. A subversive movement emanating from the United Nations, however, is seeking to undermine parental authority by, in effect, making children wards of the State. Under the guise of protecting children, globalists are pushing a draconian agenda known as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which if ratified will overrule the authority of parents to act in the best interests of their children.

Standing between American families and the all-consuming power of the State is the Parental Rights Amendment to the United States constitution. This constitutional amendment will protect parents and their offspring from an overreaching bureaucracy that promotes unbiblical practices that harm children and also punishes households that seek to maintain Christian values.

Only two countries, the United States and Somalia, have not approved the UNCRC. According to Article VI of the United States Constitution, all treaties entered into by America “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Ratification of the UNCRC would, therefore, limit American sovereignty and supersede all federal or state laws. But the endorsement of any treaty requires a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to pass, which the Senate has thus far failed to achieve.

At first glance the UNCRC sounds both appropriate and needed. After all, few would disagree that children should have human rights as well as adults. But, as they say, the devil is in the details, and the UNCRC truly emanates from the Pit. It would sweep aside all restrictions on abortion and contraception under the rubric of providing “health care services” to children–without the consent of their parents.

Moreover, children will be indoctrinated with values and views that many parents will find objectionable. The UNCRC mandates that underaged youth be exposed to “information and material from a diversity of national and international sources,” including a variety of viewpoints related to their “spiritual and moral well-being,”–once again, values and views that many parents will find offensive.

Relegating the instruction of moral and religious beliefs to a host of questionable sources will have predictably  deleterious consequences. The United Kingdom is a prime example of what happens when the State becomes the instructor of ethics. A government-issued pamphlet entitled “Talking to Your Teenager about Sex and Relationships” advises children to choose their own morals regarding sexuality and instructs parents to keep silent lest they discourage their children from exploring any and all views on sexuality and relationships.

The World Policy Analysis Center at UCLA’s Fielding School of Public Health noted a number of areas of progress regarding children’s rights since the introduction of the UNCRC. However, the Center also noted that “Global challenges still remain in the area of child marriage.” Despite all the rhetoric about “children’s rights,” the proponents of the UNCRC still cannot face up to the massive inconsistencies of their position.  If they are fighting for “children’s rights,” should that not include the right to marry?

Far from evincing concern about this worldwide scourge, the UNCRC apparently approves of the “right” of children to be forcibly married at young ages.  Michael P. Farris, is a constitutional lawyer and president of ParentalRights.org, an organization that has been campaigning against U.S. ratification of “dangerous U.N conventions that “threaten parental rights” such as the UNCRC.   Farris notes:

“The United States demonstrates its commitment to human rights whenever it follows and enforces the Constitution of the United States, which is the greatest human rights instrument in all history.”

The Washington Post predictably rails against Farris and ParentalRights.org, claiming:

The group fears that ratifying the treaty would mean children could choose their own religion, that children would have a legally enforceable right to leisure, that nations would have to spend more on children’s welfare than national defense, and that a child’s ‘right to be heard’ could trigger a governmental review of any decision a parent made that a child didn’t like.  

The Post is apparently oblivious to the fact that children have few if any of these “rights” in the vast majority of countries that so eagerly climbed aboard the bandwagon of the UNCRC. According to The Post,

The United States can learn from other member nations on how to reduce poverty, ensure women’s rights, improve education and educational access, and healthy living conditions, for starters.  

Such facetious claims are the epitome of hypocrisy when hundreds of thousands of migrants from Central America have either arrived or are at this very moment making the arduous thousand-mile journey on foot to have the opportunity to cross the border and enjoy lavish government benefits that are unknown in much of the world.

The Migrant Policy Institute confirms that the United States is by far the preeminent destination country for migrants seeking a better life–with more than four times the number of immigrants seeking asylum than in the second-place country: Saudi Arabia. Accounts of the horrific abuse suffered by those who are forced out of necessity to work in the desert kingdom are well-known, but lie beyond the scope of this article.

Contradicting the implications of the UNCRC charter, another United Nations organization, UNICEF, states unambiguously:

Marriage before the age of 18 is a fundamental violation of human rights…. Child marriage often compromises a girl’s development by resulting in early pregnancy and social isolation, interrupting her schooling, limiting her opportunities for career and vocational advancement and placing her at increased risk of domestic violence. Child marriage also affects boys, but to a lesser degree than girls.

Yet today dozens of countries openly allow child marriages below the age of fifteen. While the United Nations is quick to condemn the United States for its alleged failures, nary a peep is heard concerning the travesty of child marriages primarily in South America and the Arab world, which have the highest rates of child marriages.

Hope is on the way: the Parental Rights Amendment to the United States constitution is gaining momentum.  Introduced this week by U.S. Representative Jim Banks (R-IN).  The Amendment already has fifteen cosponsors, six more than when it was introduced last year.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Congressional representative to urge him/her to become a cosponsor of the Parental Rights Amendment (H.J. Res. 36).  The Parental Rights Amendment will ensure that the next generation of children will be raised and guided by their loving parents, not by an impersonal government bureaucracy pushing an agenda inimical to the values of American families.

Christian Life in Exile
On February 22^nd, IFI is hosting a special forum with Dr. Erwin Lutzer as he teaches from his latest book, “The Church in Babylon,” answering the question, “How do we live faithfully in a culture that perceives our light as darkness?” This event is free and open to the public, and will be held at Jubilee Church in Medinah, Illinois.

Click HERE for more info…

Written by Greg Morse

The American Psychological Association recently contributed its thoughts on traditional masculinity, telling us that it’s mainly a semi-harmful social construct. This week, Gillette has added its two cents on “toxic” masculinity in a now-viral advertisement. The main point: men must hold other men accountable “in ways big and small,” especially as it pertains to sexual harassment and bullying. This is important because, apart from the incentive of selling shaving products, the boys watching today will be the men of tomorrow.

Backlash has ensued. The commercial has almost half a million likes with twice as many dislikes. Many decry the characterization that men today are sexual harassers who sit around at barbecues and let kids beat each other up, mumbling between beers that “boys will be boys.” The commercial, some say, promotes a view that all men are rapists and bullies.

Others heard it as yet another call to be less rugged, more domesticated, more conceding to the feminism of our time. Another attempt to paint us as unstable in order to take away sharp objects. The virtue that men and women have equal value has devolved into the vice that pretends men and women are the same.

But many embrace the message because it calls out a strain of men that do exist in our society — brutes who use their strength and power toward corrupt ends. Whether that end entails touching a female inappropriately or harassing someone smaller, God’s people — like God himself — will confront such violence and abuse.

Narrowly speaking, the message that seeks to protect our women and children deserves our hearty amen, regardless of whether Balaam speaks it. We too stand firmly, unequivocally against that imposter called brutality. But this is one perversion today that is profitable to stand publicly against. Another distortion, less financially beneficial, has slipped quietly under the radar.

When Men Wore Pants

This less-popular strain of toxic masculinity was documented a decade ago by Dockers in its Man-ifesto campaign. Its commercial, worth quoting in full, reads as follows:

Once upon a time, men wore the pants, and wore them well. Women rarely had to open doors, and little old ladies never crossed the street alone. Men took charge because that’s what they did. But somewhere along the way, the world decided it no longer needed men. Disco by disco, latte by foamy nonfat latte, men were stripped of their khakis and left stranded on the road between boyhood and androgyny.

It continues,

But today, there are questions our genderless society has no answers for. The world sits idly by, and cities crumble, children misbehave, and those little old ladies remain on one side of the street. For the first time since bad guys, we need heroes. We need grown-ups. We need men to put down the plastic fork, step away from the salad bar, and untie the world from the tracks of complacency. It’s time to get your hands dirty. It’s time to answer the call of manhood. It’s time to wear the pants.

The pants company rightly observes that cities crumble without men living as men. We need heroes that do not beat up those they swore to protect, and heroes who are willing to take off their superman pajamas, put down their frothy drinks, and act more like Clark Kent — the very thing our sexless society is trying to make harder than ever.

Too often we swing from decrying chauvinism and abuse to producing a society of plastic forks, nonfat lattes, and men who don’t mind going to church because of the free babysitting. When our children look at men today — the kind in television shows, homes, and the classroom — what do they see? What is this masculinity of tomorrow we are all concerned with?

Manicured Manhood

Just having returned from a visit to “the greatest place on earth,” my wife and I were shocked at how many men boldly acted like women. Lispy sentences, light gestures, soft mannerisms, and flamboyant jokes were everywhere to be seen — on display for a park flooded with children. No hiding it. No shame. No apologizing. This perversion of masculinity warranted no commercials.

Instead, our society celebrates what Paul calls literally “soft men” (Greek malakoi), a group that will not enter the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9). And discomfort at this will-not-inherit-the-kingdom version of manliness is exactly a symptom of what the APA finds malignant in traditional manhood. But as much as the APA and LGBTQs protest it as hate speech, the effeminate shall not enter the kingdom of God, and it is unloving not to say so.

While men who brutalize and manipulate represent one form of perversion (the kind companies now put their dollars into supporting), men who sit passive, complacent, spiritually and emotionally frail, represent another. So also do men who rebel against their sex by acting like women. And too many classrooms that celebrate this perversion act as accomplices to confusing the boys (and girls) of today. Paul commands all men, “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13), and offers them the hope of the gospel that they too might be washed, sanctified, and justified “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

David Mathis rightly tells us that the strongest men are gentle. But do not hear him saying that godly men are soft, fragile, weak, or effeminate. They do not faint in the day of adversity. They dress for war every day against forces of evil. They are sacrificial initiators, not limp deferrers. Men who charge against enemy gates, leading from the front, and refusing to take cover behind their wives and children. They lead. They protect. They initiate. They love. They sacrifice. They work. They worship. They are men.

When Men Killed Dragons

Godly men are neither severe nor effeminate. They have a sword, but use it against the dragon, not the princess in the castle. They are safe to those God calls them to protect, dangerous to the flesh and the kingdom of darkness. They have more to do than restrain themselves; they live for the glory of God. They mount their horse, gird up their loins, and “ride out victoriously for the cause of truth and meekness and righteousness” (Psalm 45:4). And their General, instead of handing them plastic forks, “trains their hands for war, so that their arms can bend a bow of bronze” (2 Samuel 22:35).

They are like Moses, not Pharaoh. They do not lord their power in hopes of cowardly self-preservation. They stand against an empire with the Lord over all empires, calling for tyrants to heed the God of heaven and earth. They are assertive and yet comprise the meekest men on the planet. They make unpopular decisions, meet regularly with their God, and constantly insist, “Thus saith the Lord.”

They are like David, not Saul. They do not hide when duty calls. They gladly go into battle, when others will not, in the venture of their God’s fame. They kill tens of thousands of sins, and fight the more fearful enemy than Goliath. They dress in armor too big for them: God’s (Ephesians 6:13). They know much warfare and yet can testify that God’s gentleness makes them great (2 Samuel 22:36). Battle-tested, yet they may give themselves to things such as poetry. And should they ever shirk their duty and do wickedly, they repent before God and trust in his mercy and steadfast love to restore them.

The Best a Man Can Get

Such men are like Jesus, not the world’s soft-serve substitute. The smiley, flowy-haired, manicured Jesus is an idol. The Jesus of the Bible is the King of kings and the Lord of lords, who will return with a sword in his mouth and heaven’s army in his wake. He is the thrice holy man of war, the great redeemer, the sinner’s friend, who calls all to repentance, faith, and obedience. Vengeance is his; he will repay.

And yet, he also calls children to himself. He washes disciples’ feet. He speaks gracious words to the oppressed, champions the widow’s cause, and calls the contrite near. A bruised reed he does not break, and a faintly burning wick he does not snuff. Tough, yet tender.

Satan hates such biblical masculinity. He pressures men like never before to apologize for being what God has made him. He hands him androgyny, effeminacy, passivity, and pornography. He calls it a social construct and sends the Delilah of feminism to strip him of his passion, ambition, and strength, laughing as men ache while watching Braveheart. But while he hates that God made them both male and female (Genesis 1:27), we can show the world the best a man can get: gentleness and strength, holy compassion and holy aggression. In a word, Christ.

This article was initially published on DesiringGod.org

The bloodiest war that the United States ever fought did not take place on a foreign battlefield but raged on American soil, as brother took up arms against brother over the issue of slavery. The war began with the bombardment of Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861, and ended in the Spring of 1865, when Robert E. Lee surrendered the Confederate Army to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse. The modest brick structure standing forlornly in a field in central Virginia belies the magnitude of the human tragedy, with an estimated 620,000 killed—almost as many as in all foreign wars combined.

The war led to the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment (Amendment XIII) to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude. But while the facts of this violent conflict are familiar to students of American history, what is less-known is that the practice of slavery continues unabated. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), every year millions of men, women, and children are the victims of trafficking, which involves the use of force, fraud, or coercion to compel an individual against their will to perform some type of labor or commercial sex act.  The DHS estimates that many billions of dollars per year are generated by human trafficking, which is second only to drug trafficking as the most profitable transnational crime.

Traffickers seek those who are susceptible because of psychological or emotional vulnerability, economic hardship, or in many cases children who are unable to protect themselves against predators.  Doctors Without Borders reports that two-thirds of migrants traveling through Mexico to the United States experience violence, including theft, torture, and rape. As the DHS notes, “The trauma caused by the traffickers can be so great that many may not identify themselves as victims or ask for help.”

Responding to the crisis, President Donald Trump has proclaimed January as “National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month.” Referring to human trafficking as “a modern form of slavery,” the president pledged to “actively work to prevent and end this barbaric exploitation of innocent victims.”

The president noted that the lack of an impregnable barrier has enabled traffickers to transport their victims into the United States with virtual impunity. Accordingly, “I have made it a top priority to fully secure our Nation’s Southwest border, including through the continued construction of a physical wall, so that we can stop human trafficking and stem the flow of deadly drugs and criminals into our country.”

Trump refuses to sign a spending bill that does not contain funding for a border wall. Seemingly oblivious to the dangers of an unsecured border, Speaker of the U.S. House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) calls a wall “an immorality between countries; it’s an old way of thinking.” U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) agreed, stating: “This president just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis (and) stoke fear.” Meanwhile, in 2018 almost 400,000 people were apprehended after illegally crossing the border.

The battle is also raging in cyberspace, as human traffickers recruit their victims through websites.  In April 2018, the FBI shut down the nation’s largest child-sex trafficking website, Backpage.com. The FBI alleged that Backpage.com encouraged the posting of ads for prostitution and the human trafficking of minors. As a result, Backpage.com CEO Carl Ferrer was convicted on charges of facilitating prostitution and money laundering.

While the bill signed in April led to the closing of an estimated 87 percent of human trafficking sites, the demand is such that other players in the lucrative online sex-for-hire market have since moved in to fill the void. The software company Marinus Analytics reports that in a one-month period after Backpage.com was shut down, 146,000 online sex ads were posted every day.

The horrors of human trafficking in our day rival the slavery of a bygone era. One can only hope that sufficient numbers of those who possess the determination of an Abraham Lincoln will arise to at long last bring the horrors of human trafficking to an end at a modern-day Appomattox.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth and your own U.S. Reprsenative to ask them to support federal legislation – including a border wall – to help combat this horrific practice of human trafficking into the United States.

Alternatively, you may phone the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. An operator will connect you directly with the legislative office you request.

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

Written by Peter Heck

It can’t continue.  It won’t continue.  Jesus said it, Lincoln plagiarized it, and it’s still true: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

It was always a foregone conclusion that the left’s cultural revolution was never going to end well for society.  But what so many people who consider themselves progressive never paused to consider, apparently, was that revolutions rarely end well for the revolutionaries.  It’s almost axiomatic that as a revolution unfolds, even if it meets with initial successes, various factions will form and begin devouring one another.

Just days ago this story broke – one that is almost too stupid to even take time to comment on (I say almost because obviously I found value in pointing to it as a case study in the very phenomenon I’m addressing):

Organizers of a Women’s March rally slated for Northern California next month have canceled the event, saying they were concerned that participants would have been “overwhelmingly white.”

In a news release, organizers for the march in Eureka – about 270 miles north of San Francisco – said Friday the “decision was made after many conversations between local social-change organizers and supporters of the march.”

“Up to this point, the participants have been overwhelmingly white, lacking representation from several perspectives in our community,” the news release continued.

So here we see a march supposedly dedicated to addressing concerns of “women” being shut down because it didn’t sufficiently meet some woke criteria for racial and ethnic diversity.  White women aren’t quite women enough apparently.  The left eats itself.

This woke cannibalism is occurring in the progressive church movement as well.  I recently came across this stunningly absurd challenge to pastors by Kaitlin Curtice, a contributor to progressive Christian organizations Sojourners and the Red Letter Christians:

“Pastors, In 2019, do you think you could quote 52 non-white-dudes in your sermons, especially if you’re a white dude?”

Apparently it didn’t dawn on Kaitlin – a contributor to pseudo-Christian organizations, no less – that any pastor who quotes the Bible in his sermons is quoting non-white-dudes…every week.  But regardless, notice again what is important isn’t the soundness of one’s theology, it’s a diversity component, the “woke quotient” that matters.

But it gets worse than the wokeness.  Take the intellectually vapid, morally rudderless, and ethically confused blind crusade towards sexual anarchy and you’re set for a doozy of an implosion.  The foundational acronym LGBT spells disaster from the start, after all.

Homosexual dogma (the L’s and the G’s) have imposed by cultural fiat the assumption that sexual orientation and attraction is innate, unchangeable, and fixed.  This “born that way” philosophy was the basis and justification for the claims to marriage rights, adoption rights, and more.

But transgender dogma (the T’s) are attempting to impose by cultural fiat the assumption that sexual identity is a social construct.  If you don’t see a scientific inconsistency between “your attractions can’t ever change but your sex can change daily” then you’re not paying attention.

And let’s not leave out the often-overlooked bisexual dogma (the B’s).  Their very identifier implies that there are two genders.  Meanwhile, transgender dogma is currently battling that proposition as bigoted and dehumanizing.  In other words, the very acronym upon which the movement is predicated (LGBT) is, by their own definition, transphobic.

Ka-boom.

This article was originally published at PeterHeck.com

America has become a cesspool of fetid water in which we’re all boiling alive like those frogs we’ve heard so much about. How else to account for the silence of most Christian leaders on the “trans” ideology, including those who pontificate on social injustice while saying and doing virtually nothing as children are being chemically sterilized and surgically mutilated? How else to account for the absence of protests at the pestilent drag queen story hours for toddlers that pollute public libraries across the country? How else to account for an 11-year-old boy cavorting in drag on stage at “BROOKLYN’S PREMIER QUEER BAR” to the leers and cheers of adult homosexual men who threw dollar bills at him? And how else to account for the parents of this exploited child being allowed to retain custody of him?

Desmond Napoles, better known by his drag persona “Desmond is Amazing” appeared at the 3 Dollar Bill club in Brooklyn, sashaying about the homosexual/drag club stage all decked out like singer Gwen Stefani. I wrote this about Desmond a year ago:

Wendylou Napoles, another feckless perversion-facilitating mother, supports her 10-year-old son Desmond in his drag queen aspirations. His drag persona, “Desmond is Amazing,” first came to the public’s attention in 2015 when he marched—or rather “vogued” in the New York City “pride” parade to the cheers of the sick crowd. A video of his unfortunate performance went viral, and his career as an exploited child-transvestite took off.

Desmond now has an Instagram account on which he posts photos of himself in drag as well as a Facebook page that has no normal little boy photos. He recently announced his plans for a virtual club that will be a “positive, encouraging, and safe online community for all drag kids to connect with one another.” Does anyone believe a fifth-grader would on his own come up with such an idea?

In a June 2017 interview in Out Magazine about Desmond’s “premature fabulousness,” Desmond’s mom, who admits to taking him to the NYC pride parade every year since he was about “four or five” and to buying his drag outfits for him, said she has known for “a long time” that her 10-year-old son is homosexual.

In another Out Magazine interview in October 2017, Ms. Napoles claims Desmond had his first crush at age seven on Jinkx Monsoon, an adult drag queen he saw on RuPaul’s drag show….

Is that really what Desmond experienced? A crush on an adult? How many seven-year-old boys have crushes on adults?

Not quite a month ago, Desmond appeared on three episodes of the YouTube show called Pe-eew! which is described as a “stinky, sit-down comedy talk show satire” hosted by two homosexuals, one of whom is 51-year-old Michael Alig. Alig was the premier “club kid” in New York City in the 1980’s and 1990’s. In 2014, Alig was released from prison after serving 18 years for murdering his friend and drug dealer Andre “Angel” Melendez, leaving Melendez’ rotting body in his bathtub for 8 days, dismembering him, and throwing the dismembered body into the Hudson River….

In this Pe-eew! episode (click here), Alig and homosexual co-host Eric Glam ask Desmond about his pink lace and bejeweled hand mirror. Desmond describes it as his “Richie Rich” mirror, following which Alig and Glam start smirking and bantering about Richie Rich. No, not the Richie Rich a little boy should be talking about. They were talking about former club kid and fashion designer homosexual Richie Rich.

Wearing silver girl’s sandals and a tiara, Desmond appears in this video for Refinery 29, “a media and entertainment company that helps women see, feel, and claim their power,” to talk about his life philosophy and fashion.

Not so long ago, parents would likely have lost custody of their children for doing the things these mothers are doing. Today they’re celebrated by many on the Left. It’s hard to take seriously the moral outrage of Leftists over the abuse of adult women by adult men (#MeToo campaign) when they say nothing about this kind of egregious and very public abuse of children. 

Many questions are raised but not explored by the explosion in the number of children who identify as “trans”:

• Could other “vulnerabilities” or co-morbidities like social problems, depression, anxiety, autism, or suicidal ideation contribute to the development of gender dysphoria?

• What role does family dysfunction or trauma play in cross-sex identification? How many “trans”-identifying children have absent or abusive fathers?

• How many “trans”-identifying children have experienced sexual abuse?

• How many parents of famous “trans”-identifying children profit in material ways from their children’s fame?

• How many mothers of famous “trans”-identifying children are, in effect, “stage mothers” or mothers with Munchausen Syndrome by proxy who derive pleasure from their children’s cross-sex identification?

• What part do excessively rigid gender stereotypes play in convincing either children (and/or their parents) that they are “trans” based on interests in early childhood—a period during which sexual identity is fluid?

• What part does pervasive cultural indoctrination with the “trans” ideology—including in government schools, social media, the arts, advertising, professional medical and mental health organizations, and the legacy media—play in causing children to identify as the sex they aren’t?

• If, as many parents of “trans”-identifying children claim, God makes no mistakes, why are they allowing doctors to chemically and surgically alter the God-given, healthy bodies of their children?

• If children experience a mismatch between their healthy bodies and their feelings about their biological sex, why do so many assume the error rests with healthy bodies rather than with subjective feelings?

In addition to devastating the hearts, minds, and bodies of children and adults, the “trans” toxin boiling us alive leaves a corrosive residue of overweening hubris. Those who identify as “trans” now feel entitled to bully others into submission. Like men who don evening gowns to conceal their sex, sexual anarchists conceal their tyrannical impulses beneath rhetoric about compassion, inclusivity, tolerance, equality, and justice. But make no mistake,  sexual revolutionaries are exploiting those appealing notions as weapons. Sexual revolutionaries use those noble ideals to confuse and intimidate the unpersuaded in order to silence the expression of views revolutionaries detest. And as conservatives acquiesce to every new initiative, capitulate to every rhetorical demand, and tolerate that which a decent society should oppose, the arrogance, intolerance, and sense of entitlement of “trans”-cultists grow.

Last week a grotesque display of arrogant entitlement took place in a GameStop store when a young clerk referred to a big burly man with a deep voice as “Sir,” following which the enraged burly-man set upon the young clerk with a volley of obscenities, issued a distinctly male taunt to “take it outside,” knocked down a store display, demanded the corporate number, and threatened to tattle on the young clerk to all “LGBTQ” organizations in the known world—all because of the clerk’s alleged offense of “misgendering” him.

But what the desperado furioso was really demanding was that the clerk mis-sex him. The enraged man in pink sneakers was demanding that the clerk use language that is appropriate only for a biological woman—which the brawny, brawling man clearly isn’t.

With cult-like fanaticism and tyrannical tactics, “trans”-cultists and their ideological allies now demand that all of society accept their arguable, subjective assumptions as gospel truth and kowtow to the real-world applications of those nonsensical assumptions:

• All of society is expected to share with opposite-sex persons restrooms, locker rooms, and other spaces in which humans engage in personal bodily activities, thereby undermining not only fundamental principles of modesty but also the free exercise of religion.

• All of society is expected to use incorrect pronouns or risk loss of employment or hefty fines, thereby undermining both the right to free speech and the free exercise of religion.

• All single-sex clubs, organizations, and activities—including athletics—are being forced to become co-ed, thereby undermining assembly/association rights.

The First Amendment is being dismantled bit by bit by men in dresses, aided and abetted by conservative cowardice.

Ironically, the temerity of “trans”-activists in exploiting and indoctrinating children, coercing speech, demanding entrée into opposite-sex private spaces, and shrieking obscenities at those who tacitly admit the emperor is wearing drag exposes the lie that the perverse “LGBTQQAP” ideology has anything to do with tolerance, autonomy, inclusivity, diversity, or choice.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/The-Indecency-and-arrogance-of-the-trans-cult_01.mp3

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