There is a great deal of talk about America’s opioid crisis and what can be done about such drugs.  This has led to a focus on narcotic painkillers.  In reality, America has an addiction problem.  “What might be some of the factors leading to such addictions?” is a slightly different twist to a lot of the attention placed upon the types of drugs being abused.  Could certain trends be connected to this dependent behavior?

In 1960, only 3 percent of men in their prime were not in the U.S. labor force.  Today, that number has risen to 11 percent.   What impact might that have on men and the male psyche?  Is there a connection between a loss of work, government assistance, and substance abuse?

Here’s one possible revelation.  Among non-working men ages 24- 54 roughly half are taking a pain pill during the day.  Two-thirds of those are prescription medicines.

And then there is this: two-thirds of nonworking men who take pain pills use government programs, especially Medicaid, to pay for them.

Economist Alan B. Krueger looked into this in a study released through the Brookings Institution.  He writes that, “labor force participation is lower in areas of the U.S. with a high rate of opioid prescriptions, and labor force participation fell more in areas with a high rate of opioid prescriptions.”   (About 40 percent of non-working men say pain keeps them from working.)

If there is a connection, the question seems to be “did losing work increase drug use or abuse?” or “did more drug abuse lead to a less employment?”  One may wonder too, what the secondary effects from the government’s role might be, if any, in paying for such a large chunk of these medicines.  The study shows a trend, but is it not conclusive. Still, it is worthwhile to contemplate possible links to certain social problems.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

A recent article in Psychology Today named for a survey of 1,000 women announced, “One Parent Can Do Just as Good a Job as Two, Women Say.”  More than 70 percent of those surveyed believed that a single parent could do just as good a job as two parents.  This included married women and those with and without children. More than 60 percent of the women “agreed that children do best with multiple adults invested and helping, but that two married parents are not necessary.”

The article praised this finding as “women’s liberation from one narrow path” calling it “a good thing.”   But is it really a good thing that a majority of women believe one parent can do just as good a job as two when it is women and children who suffer the most from the decline of marriage in society?

A mountain of research has found that children, and parents, do better in a married relationship. One reason married parenthood is better is due to the stability it provides over other relationships.  For example, couples that marry before having children are far more likely to stay together than other living and parenting arrangements.

Marriage also provides family members economic stability. Single mother families are five times more likely to experience poverty than married parents. Single fathers and cohabiting parents are also more likely to live in poverty.

Women and children in a married home also have better physical security.  They have a lower risk of being exposed to domestic violence. Married women are less likely to experience physical abuse than single or cohabiting women.  Children are at the lowest risk for abuse when living with their married mother and father.  They are at the greatest risk for neglect and abuse when they live with an unmarried mother and her boyfriend.

Marriage is also the best means of attaching a father to his children, which is an important parenting connection.   As the American Academy of Pediatrics explained in a recent report:
“Fathers do not parent like mothers, nor are they a replacement for mothers when they are not at home; they provide a unique, dynamic, and important contribution to their families and children.”

Single parents can, and millions do, a good job of raising children, but as a society we should still promote the ideal with the lowest number of obstacles as the best form for child and family well being.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

Jean Twenge is a researcher who has looked at data on over 11 million youth as part of a new generational study.  The millennial generation is timing out as a new, unnamed generation appears.  These young people could be called the smartphone generation born around 2000.  Today’s 18 year olds are the first to grow up spending time much differently than generations before them, due in large part, to the rise of the iPhone.

Twenge has called them iGen.  In fact, she has written a book based upon her study of today’s youth titled:  “iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy – and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood.”

What makes this new generation different is that the smartphone has impacted every aspect of their lives.  This generation spends an average of 6 hours each day on screens texting, surfing the Internet and using social media.

The once favorite activities of youth, hanging out with friends, going to the mall, watching movies, or driving around, are all occurring at significantly lower rates than with even their millennial predecessors.

Twenge looked at what impact this behavioral change has had on youth, specifically, their mental health.  She found that today’s youth, who spend more time on screens, are more depressed and less happy than those who spent more time in person with friends.

She also found that social media isn’t that social.  Kids who spend a good deal of time on screens have lower interpersonal social skills than their predecessors.  They also read less and have more difficulty reading longer passages.  This may explain why SAT reading scores have fallen an average of 14 points since 2005.

Week-long fasts from phones and technical devices appeared to be helpful in creating happiness among youth according to this interesting report that you can read HERE.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

Most everyone has heard about “sanctuary cities” during the past few years due to the attention they received during the presidential election. But have you heard of sanctuary states? How about sanctuary government buildings? Governor Bruce Rauner has agreed to sign SB 31 into law — a bill that will make taxpayer funded facilities sanctuaries for people who are here illegally.

Here is one summary of what “sanctuary” means:

The concept of a sanctuary city does not mean it is a place where federal law is unenforced by the feds. Rather, it is a place where local authorities have elected not to spend their tax dollars helping the feds to enforce federal law. The term “sanctuary city” is not a legal term but a political one.

While the United States Justice Department begins to pursue withholding federal funds from cities like Chicago for their refusal to cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement officials, our governor and General Assembly are about to enlarge the controversy, expected to cost the state billions of dollars.

Thomas Lifson at American Thinker wrote about the potential tally for just Chicago alone: Oops! Trump’s ‘sanctuary city’ penalties could cost Chicago $3.6 billion.

If the Trump Administration wins this fight (ultimately in the courts), it’s easy to figure the cost to Illinois taxpayers will be many times that Chicago estimate.

Money isn’t the only issue. The status of sanctuary state also creates a potential public safety issue.

This is from the Illinois General Assembly’s website page for SB 31 — I have separated them into bullet points for easier reading:

[CORRECTION — A reader kindly brought to my attention that the language below did NOT make it into the final version of the bill that was passed — see Amendment 3 here. In truth, the language was not necessary since state and local law enforcement officers are prohibited from making any arrests anywhere in Illinois according to the guidelines of the statute. Focusing on the “state-funded facilities” only made clearer the offensive nature of the law.]

Provides that absent a judicial warrant or probable cause of criminal activity, a government official shall not make arrests in the following State-funded facilities or their adjacent grounds:

• State-funded schools, including
• licensed day care centers,
• pre-schools, and
• other early learning programs;
• elementary and secondary schools, and
• institutions of higher education…

The list continues, but you get the drift.

The opinion divide on crime rates in sanctuary cities separates just as you would expect. “Sanctuary” proponents claim crime rates are not higher where illegal alien populations are greater, sanctuary opponents say crime rates are higher. Both sides cite studies to back up their contention.

What are the facts? In an April article at The Hill, Ron Martinelli, former minority community violent crimes detective, wrote:

Most states and our federal government have kept information and statistics about illegal immigration, crimes committed by illegals and the costs borne by you the U.S. payer out of public view. It is in fact difficult, but not impossible to locate accurate crime statistics involving illegal immigrants. The statistics are buried both to suit a political agenda and to avoid public outcry.

His article, “The truth about crime, illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities,” is worth your time. It is packed with important information to consider.

Another article to read is from Scott Erickson, posted at the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal website back in February: “The Truth About Sanctuary Cities and Crime Rates.” After a survey of the statistics, he writes:

No community of decent people—citizens, illegal immigrants, or otherwise—wants to live in a society beset by violence and social dysfunction. Stripping local law enforcement of the ability to merely cooperate with their federal counterparts on issues as plain as the removal of a dangerous criminal jeopardizes the safety of all law-abiding individuals.

If state and local law enforcement will be prohibited from making any arrests anywhere in Illinois according to the statute, let’s take another look at the kind of facilities that will be made into sanctuaries by Bruce Rauner signing SB 31:

• State-funded schools, including
• licensed day care centers,
• pre-schools, and
• other early learning programs;
• elementary and secondary schools, and
• institutions of higher education…

Is Illinois about to endanger children by preventing law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration officials?

Again, from the SB 31 web page showing the pre-amended bill — again, revealing legislative intent:

Provides that a law enforcement agency or official shall not (1) give any immigration agent access to any individual; (2) transfer any person into an immigration agent’s custody; (3) permit immigration agents use of agency facilities or equipment, including any agency electronic databases not available to the public, for investigative interviews or other investigative purpose in executing an immigration enforcement operation; or (4) respond to immigration agent inquiries regarding any individual’s incarceration status, release date, or contact information except insofar as the agency makes that information available to the public.

With Chicago’s murder rate and Illinois’ fiscal condition, is this really the time to have our state “harbor federal fugitives who have broken federal immigration law by crossing the border illegally”?

“Harboring federal fugitives” sure sounds different than the act of providing a “sanctuary,” doesn’t it?

Earlier this month, Illinois Review reported that according to the communications director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, “Signing SB 31 into law would make Illinois the state most open to illegal aliens besides California”:

“Not only would it make Illinois open to those in the country illegally, it could create dangerous situations for the public and add more financial burdens to the state,” Dave Ray said. “And isn’t the state of Illinois already having financial difficulties?”

To learn more about the current and historic legal tussle between the feds and the states, read this article by Douglas V. Gibbs: Sanctuary Cities Violate Supremacy Clause.

The Illinois Senate passed SB 31 on May 4th by a vote of 31-21, and the Illinois House passed it on May 29th by a vote of 62-49.  The bill has been on Gov. Bruce Rauner’s desk since June 29th.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Gov. Bruce Rauner to ask him to veto this legislation. We only have a short window of opportunity to speak out.

ALSO: please call the public comment lines in the Governor’s office in Springfield: (217) 782-0244 and Chicago (312) 814-2121.

For even more on the politics, crime rates, and economics of sanctuary cities and states, a collection of articles can be found here.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

The election of Donald Trump was often attributed to a reaction to the declining economics of middle-aged men.  However, a new study of young men finds that they have their own share of economic struggles today, too.   According to data from the National Bureau of Economic Research:

“Between 2000 and 2015, market hours worked fell by 203 hours per year (12 percent) for younger men ages 21-30, compared to a decline of 163 hours per year (8 percent) for men ages 31-55 . . . Not only have hours fallen, but there is a large and growing segment of this population that appears to be detached from the labor market. 15 percent of younger men, excluding full-time students, worked zero weeks over the prior year as of 2016. The comparable number in 2000 was only 8 percent.”

What is particularly interesting is that this study looked at what is occurring with many of these unemployed or underemployed young men.  They found that as these men work less, many are spending more time on computers, playing video games.  The study found that unemployed young men spend about 530 hours a year, or thirteen 40-hour-work weeks, playing video games.

The Institute for Family Studies points out that only 12 percent of non-working younger men are married, or live with a partner and a smaller fraction report living in a household with a dependent child. Many young men are still living at home or receiving assistance from their parents.  A generation or two ago, things would have looked quite different. Men were forced to grow up more quickly by becoming husbands and fathers, with wives and young children who depended on them financially and otherwise.

This means more personal freedom for the average 20-something man today.  However, it also means that without work or a family to hold them accountable, these young men are free to “game” away their time. They are also increasingly unmoored from things, like marriage or faith that would have sustained the hard and unpredictable lives of the blue-collar men who came before them.

Video games may be more cool and advanced than ever before, but can they offer the long-term happiness that previous generations of men found in hard work, personal community, marriage and faith?

This article was originally posted by AFAIN.net.

There is a new Harris Poll that finds that audiences are growing tired of profanity-filled movies coming from Hollywood.  However the study also seems to reveal a lack of discernment as well in my opinion.  Perhaps the pervasiveness of profanity has already lowered standards.

Three profanities, two blasphemous ones and one vulgarity were measured and found to be offensive to the point of losing some audience members.   The use of Jesus’ name as a swear word was the biggest offense with 33 percent of the general public saying they would be less likely to see a movie if they knew this profanity would appear beforehand.

There were demographic differences of interest in this study. Republicans were almost twice as likely (45 percent vs. 25 percent) to avoid profanity-laced movies with certain words than were Democrat moviegoers.  More than half of viewers over the age of 72 avoid movies with profanity.  Young people are the least offended by profanity in movie dialogue.

However, among all groups, Evangelical Christians were the most likely to avoid movies with profanity.  Nine out of ten said they might avoid a film using Christ as a swear word.  Other words I can’t reference also came in as strong deterrents.

That may not mean Christians have a high sense of moral discernment.   The poll also found that while Christians object to other “milder” words like Hell, “S” or “D” . . . none of those words scored above 50% offensive among Evangelicals!    Have those words become so common that they now fail to concern most of this large segment of society?   (Pastors searching for a sermon this month may want to revisit James chapter 3.)

Read more HERE.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

Download the IFI App!

We now have an IFI mobile app that enables us to deliver great content based on the “Tracks” you choose, including timely legislative alerts, cultural commentaries, upcoming event notifications, links to our podcasts, video reports, and even daily Bible verses to encourage you. This great app is available for Android and iPhones.

Key Features:

• It’s FREE!
• Specific content for Christians
• Performs a spiritual assessment
• Sends you daily Scriptures to encourage and equip you
• You determine when and how much content you get

Some church members seem almost determined to divorce. They are unhappy and think that if they end their marriage, they can find a better mate. What should a pastor say to them? Or what should he say to a spouse whose partner wants out?

First, pastors should urge both spouses to read an important new book by Dr. Diane Medved, Don’t Divorce: Powerful Arguments for Saving and Revitalizing Your Marriage.

However, since few people buy books these days, here’s what the pastor might say, based on the author’s advice: “No matter how strong your desire for divorce at the moment, please consider that you could be making a mistake, especially if your partner is committed to you and wants to make your marriage satisfying for both of you.”

If your partner wants to leave, ask some questions: “What can I or we do to make our marriage more satisfying to you? Are you attracted to someone else? What can I improve about my habits or behavior that would show you I value you?”

Dr. Medved argues that “In divorce, emotions trump logic. So if you want to stop the divorce, you’ll need to appeal on an emotional level…In marriage, there’s a continuum from dire misery to ecstasy.” She urges you to take small incremental changes, and ask your partner if he/she sees improvements. Increase the number of favorable emotions, gestures and interchanges. Increase the percentage of your time together that is close and supportive.

For example, have a weekly date – doing something you both enjoy. Every Friday, my daily newspaper publishes Weekend, a special section promoting costly theater and music productions. However, there is one page called The Guide to the Lively Arts which lists free events, usually held in churches. It might be a pianist and cellist, or four saxophones playing classical music. The Maryland State Boychoir of 70 boys sang a wide range of songs.

Here are other reasons to avoid divorce. First, it is hazardous to your health. An analysis of 32 studies reported that divorcees had a 23 percent greater chance of dying during the survey period, and for men, a 31 percent higher risk.

Second, “financially, divorce is a lose-lose proposition,” Medved asserts. One economist reported that “Divorce reduces a person’s wealth by about three-quarters compared to that of a single person, while being married almost doubles comparative wealth.” Thus, a married person is worth double a single person, but a divorced person’s wealth is just a quarter of that!

If there are no children, divorce simply entails a division of assets. If children are involved, there is also a division of time and money far into the future. Holidays, birthdays and family celebrations require planning.

More important, divorce is a disaster for kids. They tend to blame themselves for the breakup, and feel shut out by separating parents. Split loyalty is agony. Children of divorce do poorly in school, suffer anxiety, stress and low self-esteem, are less likely to finish high school and are three times more likely to be expelled than kids from intact homes.

They are more apt to be juvenile delinquents and to live in poverty because incomes for non-poor mothers and children declines by 50 percent after divorce. They are less likely to move up the income ladder as adults. Only 26% with divorced parents move up to the middle or top third as adults, compared to 50% of children with intact parents. They are also more likely to commit suicide.

Divorce robs children of a triple birthright – security, wonder and optimism – that equips them to venture forth to a challenging world. “From this motivation you can rekindle the love and romance that brought you and your partner together to create them,” Medved writes.

In her landmark book, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, Judith Wallerstein interviewed 131 children from 60 divorced families over 25 years, with intensive interviews every five years. She was surprised to discover that repercussions of divorce hit hardest when children became adults.

They had a tougher time forming intimate relationships. Only 40 percent eventually married, half the general population’s rate, and they were more likely to divorce.

Often adult children of divorce “are depressed and defeated.” And angry. One asked, “Did I want them to divorce? Did I like taking orders from my stepfather? Did my dad want me around? Did my mother ask me before she got a whole new family? Who listened to me? Who helped me grow up?”

Therefore, Medved asserts, “Staying together for their welfare is perhaps the most important stand a married couple can take for their children’s future.”

Read Part 1 HERE.

Mike McManus, a Duke graduate, was a reporter for three small papers before joining TIME magazine as its youngest correspondent in 1963. Mike started writing a syndicated column in 1977 called “The Northern Perspective,” suggesting how to revive the economy of America’s old industrial states from Maine to Minnesota. At its high point, the column was in 70 papers. In 1981, he began writing a second syndicated column, “Ethics & Religion.” For 11 years he wrote both weekly columns, but discontinued writing The Northern Perspective in 1992 when he got a contract to write a book, Marriage Savers: Helping Your Friends and Family Avoid Divorce, published in 1993 and expanded in 1995.

Mike and his wife, Harriet, are co-founders of Marriage Savers, an organization devoted to helping churches virtually eliminate divorce in their congregations and to pushing down city-wide divorce rates.

Read Mike’s complete byline HERE.

Written by Michael McManus

Marriage has fallen on hard times. Half of America’s marriages have ended in divorce since 1975 – a divorce rate that is triple that of Britain or France.

Dr. Diane Medved offers answers in a compelling new book, Don’t Divorce: Compelling Arguments for Saving and Revitalizing Your Marriage. 

It is must reading for anyone considering divorce.

“Mending your marriage is good for you and for your partner,” she writes. “Overcoming problems will teach you how to prevent future problems in your marriage…On the other hand, divorce harms your self-esteem, your present and future health and your standard of living.”

Of course, children will benefit from what she calls the “two-parent advantage.” They’ll learn from you how you resolve conflict, learning that rifts between people can be overcome. However, “your children will suffer if you divorce. Your separation will have permanent psychological effects, perhaps crippling their own romantic relationships.”

Oddly, no seminary teaches pastors how to heal marriages. For example, Rev. Jeffrey Meyers of Overland Park, Kansas said he was flummoxed by a husband whose wife wanted a divorce, not knowing what to say.

Unfortunately, every state has passed “No Fault Divorce” laws which allow either spouse to declare the marriage “irreconcilable.” Four out of five of their spouses disagree, but can’t claim in court that the marriage IS reconcilable. Medved comments: “You are half of your marriage, yet…it seems you are not as important as the partner who wants out.”

Since California Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the first No Fault Divorce law in 1969, the number of divorces nearly doubled in a decade from 639,000 to 1,189,000. Medved writes, “The general importance of children in divorce has led some marriage advocates to suggest that except in abuse cases, a divorce shouldn’t be granted to those with kids unless both parents agree to it.”

Medved footnotes that statement with a reference to my book, How To Cut America’s Divorce Rate in Half – A Strategy Every State Should Adopt. If state divorce laws required couples with children to agree to divorce, I believe the divorce rate could be cut in half. To date, no state has taken this step.

What most pastors do with marriages in crisis is refer them to counselors – a big mistake. “All forms of marital counseling are associated with a two- to three-fold increase in the likelihood of divorce,” according to a book, Covenant Marriage.

Medved asks, “Are you an honest person?” If so, how could you be unfaithful to your spouse?

Even if infidelity is not an issue, divorce forces you to disconnect with the person you vowed to love forever.” That “strips away joy, injecting sadness and despair.”

Therefore she argues for the alternative: to consider the long-term view, “preserving the history you’ve shared with your spouse, and creating footing for an improved future. Divorce, on the other hand, dishonors the vow you made, cuts off a substantial portion of your life (and) harms your children.”

Divorced men live 10 years less than married men; women, four years less, and their children, five years shorter lives.

Medved notes that two-thirds of marriages are in “low-conflict marriages” which “offer the best hope for being saved, and strengthened for the sake of children. Staying together for their welfare is perhaps the most important stand a married couple can take for their children’s future.”

The major reason people divorce is that they think they will be happier, perhaps with a new mate. However, a British study reports that 54 percent of those who divorced, later regretted it. Many who divorce hope for a happier remarriage. However, millions remain single after a divorce. In the “marriage market” a divorced person is not as desirable to the opposite sex as the never-married.

Two-thirds of those with children who remarry – experience a second divorce! Why? There are perpetual fights between kids and stepparents. Kids say, “I don’t want a new mom,” and can drive her out.

Medved poses a disturbing question: “If you saw your children downing in a lake, would you jump in to save them?” Of course. “But if you divorce, you throw them into the lake…Therefore, change the negative aspects of your marriage.”

Here’s some good news. Two out of three unhappily married couples who avoided divorce and worked at their marriage – ended up happily married five years later!

Up Next:  Don’t Divorce – Part 2

Mike McManus, a Duke graduate, was a reporter for three small papers before joining TIME magazine as its youngest correspondent in 1963. Mike started writing a syndicated column in 1977 called “The Northern Perspective,” suggesting how to revive the economy of America’s old industrial states from Maine to Minnesota. At its high point, the column was in 70 papers. In 1981, he began writing a second syndicated column, “Ethics & Religion.” For 11 years he wrote both weekly columns, but discontinued writing The Northern Perspective in 1992 when he got a contract to write a book, Marriage Savers: Helping Your Friends and Family Avoid Divorce, published in 1993 and expanded in 1995.

Mike and his wife, Harriet, are co-founders of Marriage Savers, an organization devoted to helping churches virtually eliminate divorce in their congregations and to pushing down city-wide divorce rates.

Read Mike’s complete byline HERE.

Written by Pastor Scott Lively

What we call the pro-family movement is a component of the larger conservative movement and deals with matters of sexuality and the natural family. Its American roots are in the cultural backlash to the Marxist revolution of the 1960s that turned family-centered society on its head and swapped the Judeo-Christian morality of our founding for Soviet-style “political correctness.”

Before the 1960s there wasn’t any need for a “pro-family” movement because family values had been the overwhelming consensus of the western world for centuries. Indeed, so surprised were Americans about the cultural revolution that it took nearly twenty years for the conservatives to mount a truly effective response to it. That came under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

The 60’s revolution was not grounded in the Marxist orthodoxy of Lenin and Stalin, but the Cultural Marxism of Herbert Marcuse’s Frankfort School, which envisioned sexual anarchy, not a “workers revolt,” as the key to dismantling Judeo-Christian civilization. The natural core constituency for this ideology was the underground “gay” movement whose dream of social acceptance was not possible without a complete transformation of American sexual morality. Thus, beginning in the late 1940s, Marxist organizer Harry Hay, so-called “father of the American gay movement” was also “father” of the (then hidden) army of “gay” activists most responsible for the “culture war” that exploded in the 60’s and continues today.

America’s Marxist revolution was therefore a “sexual revolution” whose overwhelming success vindicated Marcuse’s destructive vision and became the primary tool of the one-world government elites for softening resistance to their domination by breaking the family-centered society which is every nation’s greatest source of strength, stability and self-sufficiency.

Importantly, though primarily driven behind the scenes by “gays,” the first goal was not legitimization of homosexual sodomy but the normalization of heterosexual promiscuity. This was the motive and strategy that drove “closeted” 1940s and 50s homosexual activist Alfred Kinsey’s fraudulent “science” attacking the marriage-based sexual ethic as “repressive” and socially harmful. It also drove the launch of the modern porn industry, beginning with Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Magazine (Hefner called himself “Kinsey’s pamphleteer”). It drove and defined the battles in the courts where sexual morality was systematically “reformed” by Cultural Marxist elites on the U.S. Supreme Court: contraception on demand to facilitate “fornication without consequences” (Griswold v Connecticut 1966), abortion on demand as the backup system to failed contraception (Roe v Wade 1973), and finally legalization of homosexual sodomy (Lawrence v Texas 2003).

Note the thirty year gap between Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas. That major delay in the Marxist agenda was achieved by the election of Ronald Reagan, under whom the pro-family movement became a major political force. That gap also highlights a critical fact: that “street activism” may be essential to any political cause but the real key to the culture war is the U.S. Supreme Court. By 1981 when Ronald Reagan took power the Marxists had nearly succeeded in collapsing the nation’s family and economic infrastructure and the LGBT juggernaut had come completely out of the shadows and taken its place at the head of the cultural blitzkrieg it had been steering from the beginning. Reagan stopped that juggernaut by putting Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court, the lion of constitutional originalism who wrote the majority opinion in Bowers v Hardwick (1986) which affirmed (not created) the constitutional right of states to criminalize homosexual sodomy and other harmful sexual conduct in the public interest.

Reagan and Scalia stopped the sexual revolution in its tracks and made it possible for the pro-family movement to begin restoring family values in society, which we strove diligently to do. I got my start in Christian social activism in those heady days and served as State Communications Director for the No Special Rights Act in Oregon in 1992 which forbade the granting of civil rights minority status based on sexual conduct. We fell short in Oregon but a Colorado version of our bill passed the same year. We had in essence won the culture war with that victory given that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that minority status designation required three things: a history of discrimination, political powerlessness, and immutable (unchangeable) status (such as skin color). We had a slam-dunk win on at least two of the three criteria and it would have been just a matter of time before we passed the No Special Rights law from coast to coast.

However, Reagan had been prevented by the elites from putting a second Scalia on the court in the person of Robert Bork, and was forced by the unprecedented political “borking” of Mr. Bork to accept their man Anthony Kennedy to fill the seat instead. Just ten years later, Kennedy served his function by writing the majority opinion killing the Colorado law in Romer v Evans (1996), audaciously declaring that the court didn’t need to apply its three-part constitution test to the No Special Rights Act because it was motivated by “animus” (hate) and thus did not represent a legitimate exercise of the state’s regulatory authority. The ruling was all the more outrageous given that it was only possibly through a blatant abuse of the court’s own judicial authority. Kennedy’s “disapproval = hate” lie set the tone for the political left from that point forward.

In Lawrence v Texas, Kennedy delivered the coup-de-grace to Justice Scalia by striking down Bowers v Hardwick and brazenly ruling that “public morality” cannot be the basis for law. Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority in all five SCOTUS opinions that have, in essence, established homosexual cultural supremacy in America, including the infamous and utterly unconstitutional Obergefell v Hodges (2015) “gay marriage” decision. He is, in my opinion, the worst and most culturally destructive jurist in the history of the court: the culprit (among many villainous candidates) most responsible for the current dysfunctional state of the family in America.

So where’s the “bright future” amidst this lamentation? It’s in the promise made and so-far kept by President Donald Trump to appoint only constitutional originalists to the supreme court. It is in the pleasantly surprising discovery that his first pick, Neil Gorsuch, seems from his first comments as a “supreme” to be a perfect choice to fill the “Scalia seat” on the court. It is in the hopeful rumors that Anthony Kennedy is about to retire, and the simple fact that ultra-hard leftist Ruth Bader Ginsberg and leftist Steven Broyer are of an age that their seats could at any time be vacated by voluntary or involuntary retirement.

In short, the bright future of the pro-family movement is in the hands of the man we hired to drain the swamp in Washington DC, and who hasn’t yet backed down in that fight despite the remarkable scorched-earth campaign of destruction and discreditation being waged against him by the establishment elites of both parties, Hollywood and the media.

I must admit that after Obergefell I began to think that the pro-family movement had lost the culture war, but I now believe there is real hope, not just for reclaiming some lost ground, but possibly of reversing all of the “gains” of the hard left over the past half century. A solid majority of true constitutional originalists could actually restore the legal primacy of the natural family in America fairly quickly, and our cultural healing could quickly follow.

As the leftist elites and street activists continue their all-hands-on-deck attempted “borking” of President Trump, let’s not forget why they’re doing it. His political survival means the end of theirs. I can’t think of a brighter future than that for our nation.

This article was originally posted at ScottLively.net

Frustrated by its inability to win elections, the left is attempting to silence opponents through intimidation, either in the streets or in the courts.

The latest example is the hijacking of Guidestar USA by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Guidestar is a database of more than 2 million nonprofit and non-governmental (NGO) organizations. It’s considered the foremost authority on nonprofits, and had a self-avowed reputation for “remaining neutral.”

That changed when a left-wing activist, Jacob Harold, came aboard in 2012. Mr. Harold, whose bio boasts of donating to the Obama campaign, extensive activism on behalf of climate change groups, and hosting a NARAL Pro-Choice DC men’s event, tweeted a photo of himself holding a sign protesting President Trump at the radical Women’s March in January.

Apart from Vermont ice cream magnates Ben and Jerry, it might be hard to find a more radically leftist major CEO. So it’s no wonder that Mr. Harold welcomed the Southern Poverty Law Center as an authority on “hate groups.” Using SPLC’s “hate map” as a resource, Guidestar smeared 46 organizations, many of them Christian, as “hate groups.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center has a long history of abusing nonprofits and individuals with whom they disagree. They tar innocent people and may have inspired at least two terrorist incidents. The SPLC’s “hate map” lumps Christian and conservative organizations with neo-Nazis, skinheads and other violence-prone groups. The most common offenses? Failing to salute the brave new world of sexual anarchy or unlimited illegal immigration.

On Aug. 15, 2012, a disturbed young man, Floyd Corkins II, who later told the FBI that he had been inspired by the SPLC’s “hate map,” attempted to commit mass murder at the DC-based Family Research Council. He had a knapsack full of extra rounds and Chick-fil-A sandwiches that he had planned to stuff into the mouths of his victims. Stopped by Leo Johnson, a courageous guard who was shot while subduing him, Corkins became the first person in U.S. history to be convicted under Washington, DC, law of domestic terrorism.

On June 14, Bernie Sanders follower James T. Hodgkinson, who had “liked” the Southern Poverty Law Center on Facebook, shot up Republican congressmen and their staffs at a baseball practice in Alexandria, critically wounding Republican Majority Whip Steve Scalise, and injuring four others. The Louisiana congressman had been singled out by the SPLC for an alleged connection to a white power group, a charge he denies.

Earlier this month, Guidestar began adding the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate group labels to 46 nonprofits. Last week, Guidestar – and the SPLC by implication – began getting major pushback.

On June 21, a group of 41 Christian and conservative leaders, including former Attorney General Edwin Meese, signed a letter to Guidestar demanding deletion of the defaming labels, which Guidestar did – sort of. The labels were removed but the damage was done and the information is available upon request.

Next, Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal foundation, filed a defamation lawsuit on June 28 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Guidestar for posting a label on Liberty Counsel’s Guidestar page describing it as an SPLC-designated “hate group.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which built its reputation years ago by monitoring the Ku Klux Klan and other violent groups, still raises money by the boatload with its scare tactics and has a $300 million endowment. That allows it to do things like send a dozen attorneys to New Jersey, where a jury under a liberal judge in a kangaroo court in 2015 found a small Jewish group, Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH), guilty of consumer “fraud” for directing people to counselors who aid people in overcoming unwanted same-sex desires.

The Southern Poverty Law Center also listed former Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson in the “hate” category for his stances on marriage and biblical morality before public outrage made them withdraw the label.

Three years ago, the FBI dropped the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source for identifying hate groups. In March 2016, the U.S. Justice Department accused the Southern Poverty Law Center attorneys of “lack of professionalism” and “misconduct” for falsely characterizing the Federation for American Immigration Reform and the Immigration Reform Law Institute as “hate groups.”

Maajid Nawaz, a moderate Muslim who opposes jihad extremism, says he is also suing the Southern Poverty Law Center for defaming him and his organization, the London-based Quilliam Foundation.

If there is still doubt as to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s motives, it was laid to rest in an interview with SPLC senior fellow Mark Potok, who said that his group’s “hate group” criteria “have nothing to do with criminality or violence or any kind of guess we’re making about ‘this group could be dangerous.’ It’s strictly ideological.'”

Mr. Potok is also on video stating, “Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes and so on. I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them.”

And the Southern Poverty Law Center still has a shred of credibility? Sure they do. Ask any “mainstream” journalist.

Gov. Rauner vows to veto reckless spending plan 

Late Sunday afternoon (July 2nd), the Illinois House passed a massive tax hike for families and businesses. What does that mean for taxpayers? Well, if this proposal isn’t vetoed by Gov. Bruce Rauner, the personal income tax rate would increase by 32 percent, surging from 3.75 percent to 4.95 percent, and the corporate rate would jump from 5.25 percent to 7 percent. This would enable and fund business as usual. (“Enable” is the key word here…)

The final vote was 72-45 – with 57 Democrats and 15 Republicans voting in favor of increasing our taxes. To see how your state representative voted, please click HERE.

It is very disappointing to know that so many state representatives ignored basic economic principles, and decided that the solution to irresponsible fiscal spending and mismanagement was to place a heavier tax burden on already over-taxed families in Illinois. Instead of reducing spending and cutting waste, they opted to feed the insatiable demands of our growing state government.

This proposal (SB 9) now moves to the Illinois Senate for consideration.

Thankfully, in response to this vote, Gov. Rauner issued a statement last night promising to veto this tax hike when it arrives on his desk, saying:

“I will veto Mike Madigan’s permanent 32 percent tax hike. Illinois families don’t deserve to have more of their hard-earned money taken from them when the legislature has done little to restore confidence in government or grow jobs. Illinois families deserve more jobs, property tax relief and term limits. But tonight they got more of the same.”

We know from recent history (2011-2014) that Illinois lawmakers were unable to improve the state’s fiscal condition with a temporary income tax hike — despite their promises to do so. There is no reason to believe that sending more tax revenues to Springfield now will be any different than before. They have proven themselves to be utterly irresponsible and reckless with the tax revenues they are getting now, so why would anyone think they would do better with even more taxpayer resources?

Take ACTION: Please ask the governor and your state senator to vote against any legislative proposal that would increase tax burdens for Illinois citizens. Ask them not to take much needed resources away from family budgets to boost imprudent spending of Illinois government.

Let them know that you oppose any new tax increases when they refuse to cut government waste and bloat. You can also call your lawmakers’ Springfield offices through the Capitol Switchboard at (217) 782-2000.

PLEASE ALSO CALL THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE at (217) 782-0244 and/or (312) 814-2121.

How Did They Vote?

Spread the Word!

Please share this information on social media and with your like-minded friends and neighbors.  Only a strong response from Illinois citizens can stop this tax exploitation from going through.

It is only because of concerned citizens like you that we are able to continue promoting pro-family values in the Prairie State.

>>Private, tax-deductible contributions keep IFI in the fight for truth in Illinois. Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.

State government summer re-run season is underway at the Illinois capitol building where both political parties are cooperating to send our state further into the fiscal abyss.

Midnight came and went as we closed out the month of June without a budget being signed into law, so Illinois has begun its third straight year without one. Governor Bruce Rauner and the leaders of the General Assembly once again have failed in their principle task.

On Friday the Illinois House voted on a budget proposal that leaves most of the financial problems unaddressed. State Rep. Jeanne Ives (R-Wheaton) called the House plan “a disaster.”

In order to better celebrate Independence Day weekend, Illinois taxpayers may want to avoid reading the details of what our elected officials have once again produced. Perusing just one source, here are a few examples of their “accomplishments” as things stand midday, Saturday:

• “No other state has come close to the mess that Illinois is in.”

• The state’s credit rating is about to be downgraded to “junk,” which increases “the cost to taxpayers when the state borrows money.”

• “Illinois already has the lowest credit rating of any U.S. state…”

• Illinois “owes more than $15 billion in late payments to vendors — including doctors who provide health care to state employees and social service agencies that care for disabled people.”

• “Some homeless and domestic violence shelters have been forced to close or reduce services…”

If that isn’t bad enough, Illinois Review reported that 23 of the 51 Illinois House Republicans joined the Democrats in voting for the budget “disaster.” Thus we should expect that during next year’s campaign, those Republicans will not dare blame the Democrats for the state’s continuing fiscal mess.

So now they are working over this holiday weekend and are seriously considering a plan proposed by House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) to permanently and massively increase your family’s personal income taxes.  This plan also calls for a dramatic increase in corporate income taxes and some new service taxes.  All this to cover their wasteful and reckless spending habits.

In addition to providing more very important information, the Illinois Policy Institute has an online calculator so taxpayers can measure the damage to their family budgets that will come with the bipartisan tax increase. Since the median household income for Illinois is approximately $60,000, here is what it will look like for a family of 4:

What is key, of course, is to keep in mind that this tax increase does not come anywhere near solving the state’s problems. As more people and businesses escape to states where taxes are lower, the burden will only grow for those who remain.

Currently, the state of Illinois takes in approximately $31 to $32 billion a year in tax revenue.  The proposed budget currently before the General Assembly is $36.5 billion, which is why tax and spend lawmakers are again looking to dig deeper into the pockets of hardworking families.

IFI’s Dave Smith points out: “Illinois lawmakers have proven themselves utterly irresponsible with the tax revenues they are getting now, so why would anyone think they would do better with even more taxpayer resources? In fact, between 2011-2014, the lawmakers hit citizens with higher taxes with the promise of righting the ship. Instead of using those funds in an effective and efficient manner, they squandered it.”

That irresponsibility is exhibited in the numbers that continue to get worse: $251 billion pension liability; $15 billion of backlogged bills; $800 million in late fees; and $3.1 billion in Medicaid funding.  You can read more HERE.

More taxes, more spending, more debt and more bleeding of Illinois families.  That’s the message too many state lawmakers are advancing for the citizens of Illinois.

UPDATE:  Late Sunday afternoon (July 2nd), the Illinois House passed this proposal to permanently increase taxes on the families and businesses of Illinois by a vote of 72-45.

It now moves to the Illinois Senate for consideration.

Take ACTION: Please contact the governor and your state lawmakers to ask them vote against any legislative proposal that would increase tax burdens for Illinois citizens.

Let them know that you oppose any new tax increases when they refuse to cut government waste and bloat. You can also call your lawmakers through the Capitol Switchboard at (217) 782-2000.

PLEASE ALSO CALL THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE at (217) 782-0244 and/or (312) 814-2121.

State Representative Ives, who voted against the House proposal, summed it up on the house floor yesterday in less than four minutes:

https://youtu.be/e_pEuHGwnAc

Read more:

Big Illinois Government’s Insatiable and Impossible Demands from Taxpayers

State Senator McConchie Outlines the Simplicity of the Budget Crisis

‘Taxpayer Bargain’ Budget Puts Taxpayers First

Spread the Word!

Please share this information on social media and with your like-minded friends and neighbors.  Only a strong response from Illinois citizens can stop this tax exploitation from going through.

It is only because of concerned citizens like you that we are able to continue promoting pro-family values in the Prairie State.

>>Private, tax-deductible contributions keep IFI in the fight for truth in Illinois. Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.

Written by Jennifer Hartline

Catholic author and blogger Leila Miller asked a few questions and got an earful of profound pain and heartache for her trouble. And thank God for it.

In her new book, Primal Loss: The Now-Adult Children of Divorce Speak, the bandage is ripped off to expose a bleeding wound no one wants to acknowledge. It’s not a book of Leila’s invention, but rather a labor of love on behalf of those who’ve felt invisible and silenced for decades.

The authors of the book are 70 different adults whose parents divorced (for a wide variety of reasons). Their stories are painfully raw, candid, and until now have been unwelcome. Primal Loss seeks to change that. It’s time to talk about the real effects of divorce on children.

Primal Loss has profound lessons to teach us as a society if we are willing to heed.

What inspired Primal Loss, and what made you decide to put this book together?

LM: I am not a child of divorce myself, but over the course of a close friendship with another wife and mom here in town, I started to clue into the pain she was still dealing with from her parents’ divorce, even decades later. Most of her comments were made in passing, and she seemed nonchalant about it all, but I started asking more questions.

With the answers came an awareness that divorce left a more devastating legacy than I had ever realized. Eventually, I told my friend she needed to write a book about her experiences as a now-adult child of divorce. She never did end up writing about it; it was just too difficult to think about digging all that up.

So I took it upon myself to ask more adult children of divorce about their feelings and experiences. I continued to be stunned at their answers — and their hidden, unspoken pain. Imagining that I’d throw together a quick e-book, I wrote down a few simple questions and created a questionnaire.

On my Facebook page and my blog, Little Catholic Bubble, I asked for volunteers to give me their anonymous answers about their parents’ divorce and its effect on them. I was absolutely blown away by the replies. I knew this project had to turn into much more than just a quick e-book.

What was so shocking about the responses you were getting? 

Each parent is half of who the child is. When the parents reject each other, they are rejecting half of the child. — Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., from the Foreword of Primal Loss

LM: Two things, especially. First, that even “good divorce” left terrible scars and ongoing suffering. It was as if the shock of divorce in a low-conflict marriage was even more difficult to comprehend. If a marriage can end over something non-catastrophic, then is anything sure? The insecurity level of the contributors, the struggle to find firm footing and to trust — it was hard to read as I went through the participants’ answers.

Second, I was shocked by the fear there — the fear of being found out. Most of the contributors were afraid (some even to the point of terror) that their parents would find out they were participating in a book like this. Most of them have spent their lives placating and protecting the feelings of their parents, and parroting “the narrative” that the divorce was not only for the best, but also even a positive good. I had no idea that the children of divorce carry around this terrible burden year after year after year.

So the anonymity you afforded all the contributors is what allowed them to be completely honest. For the very first time, they can say out loud how they really feel about what was done to them. And that’s the point, isn’t it? No one in our society wants to acknowledge that divorce is committed against our children. It’s not only about the adults. Yet no one ever asks the kids how they feel, because we don’t want to know.

LM: That is correct. We don’t want to know. It would ruin the narrative that “kids are resilient” and happy as long as their parents are happy. And since marriage in modern America is not so much about vows but about romance and sex, we are not to interfere with the adults’ romantic decisions.

What is really eye-opening is seeing this silencing play out in real life: As I and others started putting out excerpts from the book, or as comments from those wounded by their parents’ divorce came in, it was uncanny how consistently divorce defenders jumped into the conversation (one demanding to know why such a book as Primal Loss would even be published!).

The pro-divorce comments served to shame and silence the adult children who were now daring to speak out. A child of divorce put it best, on one of those contentious Facebook threads: “I wish for once that those who are divorced/divorcing will be silent and just listen. I’m so tired of feeling like I have to be mindful — yet again — of the grown-ups’ feelings.” It’s what they’ve done all their lives.

Who is Primal Loss for?

LM: Several different audiences. First, it’s for the adult children of divorce, who thought they were alone in their pain.

Second, it’s for those adults now considering divorce. Please read this book. I’ve had folks tell me that after reading the first ten pages, they will never consider divorcing.

Third, it’s for divorced parents, to give them more insight into their children’s pain, even decades later.

It’s also for priests, pastors, and therapists — who far too routinely counsel for divorce.

It’s important to note that I have an entire chapter with stories of hope — disastrous marriages that were redeemed, and how those redemptions came about. It’s possible to overcome the worst of situations, and the reward is both earthly and eternal.

Finally, Primal Loss isn’t about shaming anyone. It’s not about piling on the guilt. It’s about honesty, healing, and correcting our ways going forward. We simply cannot go on believing that divorce is no big deal. The Catechism calls divorce a “contagion,” and it’s infecting and corroding our families and our nation.

This article was originally posted at Stream.org

Written by Rachel Lee Brady

Squeals of delight spiraled down from the upstairs of my home one recent evening. Then I heard my husband chasing our 18 month-old son, both laughing as they wrestled and played. A wave of thankfulness washed over me as I listened to the two of them. My husband is much more than just a co-laborer with me in the adventure of parenthood – he plays an irreplaceable role as my son’s father. Having a child has not only given me a greater appreciation for my husband, but it has also reaffirmed how incredibly blessed I am to have a wonderful father myself who has poured into my life in ways that no one else can. With Father’s Day approaching, let’s consider how fathers play a critical role in their children’s lives, and why it’s vital that we show them honor and gratitude.

As a relatively new mother, I have heard often about the importance of maternal bonding with my child, especially during the infant stage. However, the role my husband should play has never been emphasized during my many well baby visits to the doctor – even though data shows a very strong need for children to interact with their fathers. Social science research suggests that paternal interaction with their children between 3 months to 24 months of age plays a significant role in their children’s cognitive development by the time children reach their second birthday.  Giving children time to bond with their fathers is critical – even while they are still infants!

According to the National Center for Fathering, active involvement from fathers has a positive impact on their children’s emotional and behavioral health as well as their academic success. The National Fatherhood Initiative highlights how children with absent fathers have four times the risk of poverty than those with actively-involved fathers, are seven times more likely to become pregnant as a teenager, are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, and are even more likely to go to prison. We as a society should do more to encourage father-child bonding and celebrate the important role dads play in their children’s well-being, especially as the role of fathers seems to be downplayed, and more and more children are growing up in fatherless homes.

This Father’s Day, let’s renew our efforts to encourage the fathers around us in the vital role they play in their children’s lives. If you’re a mother, think of ways you can facilitate more quality time for your husband and children. Or perhaps there are young dads close to you who could use a word of encouragement as they navigate parenthood. Since children thrive when fathers are present and active, we should do more to show our sincere appreciation to the loving dads around us. I am so grateful to my own dad for his decades of love and care for me, and for my husband, who denies himself daily to live out his irreplaceable role as my son’s father.

This article was originally posted at NCFamily.org

By now, most people have heard tall tales about “pregnant men.” “Pregnant men,” as non-delusional or honest people acknowledge, are fictitious. They don’t exist except in the fertile or deceitful imaginations of “progressives” who live and move in a science-denying unreality the likes of which we find only in primitive civilizations.

Let’s take a closer look at the most recent “pregnant man” to pop up on the pop scene—which, it seems, is the only scene that matters to most Americans anymore.

This “pregnant man” is Trystan Reese, who is now and always has been a woman. As of this writing Trystan is about 8 months pregnant with her male partner John Chaplow’s (aka “Biff”) baby. Since Trystan has retained all of her female body parts, she and husband John got pregnant the old-fashioned way.

In the video in which Trystan explains that she has all her female body parts, she also explains that she has never hated her female body as some men who identify as “trans” do. One thing that is notable in the video is that Trystan has feminine mannerisms. If she were actually a man, some might describe her as effeminate. Trystan claims to be “gay” despite the fact that she is a woman and her spouse is a man, and John claims to be “gay” despite the fact that he is a man, his spouse is a woman, and she has all her woman parts. Apparently, “sexual orientation” is not quite as fixed as homosexual activists have long claimed.

Homo-activists have long claimed the following:

1.)  Homosexuality (i.e., the romantic and erotic attraction to persons of the same sex) is immutable (i.e., Homosexuals were “born that way”).

2.)  Since homosexuality is immutable, acting on such feelings is both intrinsically moral. (Only sociopaths actually believe the implicit claim that it is morally legitimate to act upon feelings that are seemingly intractable.)

Homo- and “trans”-activists make generous use of proverbial bait and switch tactics used by unsavory salesmen from time immemorial. While homosexual scholars have claimed that homosexuality is not fixed, homo-activists have been saying it is as fixed as skin color. Now, however, “trans”-activists and even homo-activists are telling us that physical embodiment has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexual attraction, which puts the lie to claims that homosexuals are attracted only to persons of the same sex. In fact, homo-activist Zack Ford, senior editor of Think Progress says that anyone who thinks body parts matter when it comes to sexual attraction is “transphobic.”

Homo- and “trans”-activists are now telling us that body parts, reproduction, clothing styles, hairstyles, makeup, mannerisms, and interests (e.g., dolls vs. trucks, hunting vs. scrapbooking) have nothing whatsoever to do with maleness or femaleness. If that’s the case, if there is nothing differentiating maleness from femaleness, they don’t exist. And if they don’t exist, then there is no reason for all those nonsensical sex-segregated restrooms, locker rooms, showers, dressing rooms, shelters, jails, dorm rooms, nursing home rooms, and semi-private hospital rooms for anyone. There’s no sensible reason to permit them these sex-segregated spaces for even those delusional people who yet believe in the myth of male and female humans. Well, that’s how it goes once you step through the looking glass.

And that’s where “progressives” are leading us baby-step by baby-step.

There is something even more notable in a video Trystan and her parents made 6 ½ years ago for Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better” campaign.  Trystan’s adoring foster sister, who is 9 years older, explains that Tristan was a very happy, much loved little girl until about 4^th grade when she started being bullied. The bullying intensified and became relentless throughout middle school. Trystan shared part of her painful story—a story to which many children can relate and which parents like me who were unable to protect a bullied child will find difficult to hear:

“Kids see weakness and they move right in. And I was pretty weak. People stole my backpack. My jacket got flushed down the toilet. My stuff got thrown over fences. People used to hock lugies into my locker, so my stuff was covered in spit and stuff. I was humiliated on a daily basis in public schools…. I didn’t know what to say or do. I didn’t know how to stand up for myself. And I don’t know that I thought I was worthy of being stood up for.”

Fighting back tears, her sister, who had been abused in foster care and group homes, says, “I never really knew the details of what was going on for him [sic] at school, but I knew it was unbearable.”

It was after these years of bullying that Trystan concluded she—who had been a happy little girl and never hated her female body—was a he. Is it possible that the little bullied girl, who viewed herself as weak and unworthy, may have thought if only she were a boy, she would no longer be weak?

Some of the former “trans” men and women about whom I wrote in March explain that they had mistakenly thought they were “trans” when in reality, they were confused. The causes of their confusion included sexual molestation and tragic family deaths. Might another cause be relentless bullying? Might a bullied little girl come to believe that boys are stronger, so if she were a boy, she would no longer be weak?

Some years ago a friend with two young children confided that her husband struggled with a powerful desire to become a woman. Later she told me that when her husband was very young, he had been told to watch his younger 5-year-old-sister while his parents were occupied. He became distracted, and there was a tragic accident that resulted in his sister’s death, overwhelming familial grief, professional repercussions for his father, and terrible social consequences for his family. Her husband continued to blame himself for the accident. It was sometime after the accident that his desire to become a girl began. Neither she nor her husband had ever thought his guilt over his sister’s death might be connected to his subsequent desire to become a girl.

Not all women who wish they were men or men who wish they were women were bullied, suffered tragic losses, or were molested, but some were. “Progressives” fight tenaciously for the right of delusional men and women to obtain falsified birth certificates. They fight to sexually integrate private spaces (thereby violating the privacy of all). They fight for boys to play on girls athletic teams (thereby rendering Title IX impotent). And they fight to prohibit by law counseling that might result in a decrease in suffering in men and women who reject their sex. In so doing, “progressives” never consider that they just may be standing in the way of healing and wholeness.

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you. Donate now

-and, please-