Written by Heather Mac Donald

I have been talking about the criminal-justice system at colleges recently and encountering the inevitable claim from students (picked up from their professors) that poverty causes crime. This video throws that exculpatory narrative into doubt.

Gang leader Thaddeus Jimenez is driving his convertible Mercedes through a Chicago neighborhood on the Northwest Side looking for someone to shoot. Jimenez is carrying a pistol; his passenger is carrying a semi-automatic rifle. Jimenez had received a $25 million windfall in 2012 for a wrongful conviction and had spent the money on “rebuilding his old gang, buying guns and fancy cars, and throwing lavish drug-fueled parties,” according to the Chicago Tribune.  An ex-gang member and friend walks up to the Mercedes and asks:

“What’s up, folks?”

“Why shouldn’t I blast you right now?” Jimenez declares.

“Blast me, n****?” the friend, Earl Casteel, replies. “You my brother, man! I ain’t got nothing against you.”

Jimenez aims his pistol at Casteel’s legs and opens fire, shooting him once in each thigh.

“Why would you do that?” Casteel cries out as he falls to the street.

“Shut up, b****,” Jimenez says and takes off, speeding 70 mph down busy residential and commercial streets before crashing his Mercedes into a parked car.

Poverty had nothing to do with this gratuitous violence. The millionaire Jimenez was a master of conspicuous consumption, like so many gangbangers. Nor does any hypothesized “poverty” in his childhood explain such predatory behavior.  There was real poverty in the Great Depression — no welfare recipients with smartphones and cable TV then — and crime rates were negligible. Many Asian immigrant families today have lower incomes than average inner-city residents, yet their children’s crime rates are also negligible. Poverty also does not explain flash mobs of “urban youth,” such as the ones in Center City Philadelphia that have been beating, macing, and possibly tasing white pedestrians over the last month.

The Chicago video shows the consequence not of poverty but of familial and cultural breakdown. Gang-infested neighborhoods need a reconstruction of norms, above all, bourgeois values of self-control, personal responsibility (especially for one’s children), and marriage. If $25 million couldn’t stop Thaddeus Jimenez from shooting an innocent man, big government anti-poverty programs, such as the $1.4 billion in New York State tax dollars that Governor Andrew Cuomo is diverting into Central Brooklyn, are unlikely to dissuade other budding felons from a life of crime either.

This article was originally posted at National Review.

The parenting blogger “Scary Mommy” and her husband—who have three young children—are divorcing. The proximate cause of their divorce is his homoerotic desire. The ultimate cause is rebellion against God.

Scary Mommy, Jill Smokler, and her husband Jeff have been married for 17 years. In a recent interview Jeff describes his love for Jill:

Jill and I are soul mates, and I knew that very early on.…She just completed me….[O]ver the years, my sexuality became much more a part of who I was….What’s amazing to me is how in love a gay man could be with a woman….I was in love with Jill as much as anybody could be in love with anybody. And for the first seven years of our relationship, that was enough, it truly was….We want to show folks that you can do divorce in a way that not just puts your children first, but can come from a place of love. And in our case, there has never been a shortage of love.

Yes, nothing says “putting your children first” quite like leaving their mother to have erotic relations with men.

Blog commenters defending this decision argue that the husband didn’t choose to experience homoerotic desire, that homoeroticism has always existed, and that the times they are a-changin’.

First, the fact that a person experiences powerful, seemingly persistent, and unchosen feelings does not mean that activity impelled by such feelings is intrinsically moral activity. Do we really want to defend the proposition that it is morally legitimate to act on every powerful, persistent, unchosen feeling? Yikes.

Second, divorce-defenders are right: There is nothing new under the sun. But what do people mean with such a statement? Consensual adult incest has always existed. Does the fact that it has always existed confer on it the status of a moral good?

Third, these divorce-defenders seem to suggest that the arc of morality bends ineluctably toward greater moral truth. They seem to be arguing that shifts in moral beliefs over time are always good (How they would explain the shift over time from approval of homosexuality to disapproval and back again to approval would be fascinating to hear). The inconvenient truth is that there exist objective, transcendent moral truths that do not change with the vagaries of cultural. In his book, Ideas Have Consequences, Richard Weaver wrote this:

Whoever argues for a restoration of values is sooner or later met with the objection that one cannot return, or as the phrase is likely to be, “you can’t turn the clock back.” By thus assuming that we are prisoners of the moment, the objection well reveals the philosophic position of modernism. The believer in truth, on the other hand, is bound to maintain that the things of highest value are not affected by time; otherwise the very concept of truth becomes impossible. In declaring that we wish to recover lost ideals and values, we are looking toward an ontological realm that is timeless.

Here’s a moral truth: Wedding vows are oaths—commitments proclaimed before God and man that a man and woman will remain united as husband and wife through the good and bad until death parts them. And such oaths entail self-denial. All lifelong married couples experience self-denial and that self-denial or self-sacrifice is not “fairly” or equally distributed.

Here’s another moral truth: Children need and deserve to have parents who are willing to sacrifice their desires for the good of their children—children for whom most parents claim they would lay down their lives. I guess setting aside homoerotic attraction is a bridge too far.

Scary Mommy’s soon to be ex-hubby (aka Selfish Daddy) told his young sons that “Mommy and Daddy are going to be happy now and happier people make better parents.”

What a self-serving, pop-psychology crock.

IFI Forums: Climate Change & the Christian

Join us during the last week of April as we have Dr. Calvin Beisner, the founder & national spokesman for The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation discuss the Christian responsibility to the environment as we learn how to discern truth and myth in the climate change controversy.

April 25th in Rockford
April 26th in Arlington Heights
April 27th in Orland Park
April 28th in Peoria

Click HERE to learn more!

‘Rising Tide of Personality Disorders Among Millenials’

I was hoping to ignore yesterday’s political protest called “A Day Without a Woman,” which coincided with International Women’s Day. I hoped to ignore it because the women involved are so annoying.

But as when an annoying bloodsucking, disease-spreading mosquito lands on me, I feel an insuperable desire to slap them—I mean metaphorically, of course, with my virtual pen. I would never actually slap a femosquito.

Here is the goal of “A Day Without a Woman” day:

The goal is to highlight the economic power and significance that women have in the US and global economies, while calling attention to the economic injustices women and gender nonconforming people continue to face….We must have the power to control our bodies and be free from gender norms, expectations and stereotypes. We must free ourselves and our society from the constant awarding of power, agency and resources disproportionately to masculinity, to the exclusion of others….We must end the hiring discrimination that women, particularly mothers, women of color, women with disabilities, Indigenous women, lesbian, queer and trans women still face each day in our nation.

Yes, nothing says WOMEN’S POWER and DOWN WITH PATRIARCHY quite like allowing masquerading men into our restrooms, locker rooms, showers, and shelters.

What do femosquitoes mean when they claim that “power, agency, and resources” are awarded “disproportionately to masculinity, to the exclusion of others”? How did they arrive at that conclusion? What does that even mean? What is their evidence for the claim that “agency” is “disproportionately” awarded to “masculinity”? Are “butch” lesbians awarded greater power, agency, and resources than  femme lesbians? Do they mean that the power and agency of men is unjust?

I say, let’s have a “Day Without a Man” day and see how society fares. Let’s see what happens to femosquitoes when all policeMEN; fireMEN; National GuardsMEN; and all “masculine” soldiers, teachers, attorneys, judges, construction workers, plumbers, electricians, accountants, engineers, doctors, mechanics, miners, powerline and cable workers, computer programmers, dry wall installers, paramedics, and pilots stay home, put their feet up, and have a beer—or a bonbon (I don’t want to be gustatorily sexist).

Ahhh, that was cathartic and empowering. I just wish the 30 million girls whose deaths via abortions femosquitoes support could feel empowered, but it’s so darn hard to feel empowered when you’re dead.

IFI depends on the support of readers like you.

Written by Rachel Sheffield

Children born to unmarried, cohabiting parents—both in the United States and across Europe—are nearly twice as likely to see their parents split up, compared to children born to married parents.

A new study from the Institute for Family Studies and Social Trends Institute examines family stability among cohabiting and married-parent families from numerous countries across the world. The findings provide evidence against some common myths about cohabitation and children’s family stability.

One of these myths claims that cohabitation is less stable than marriage simply because low-income individuals are more likely to choose to cohabit. However, researchers find that in the majority of countries studied, cohabitation is less stable even among the highly educated.

The authors note, “In the overwhelming majority of countries, the most educated cohabiting parents still have a far higher rate of break-up than the lowest educated married couples.”

For example, in the United States, 49 percent of children born to highly-educated cohabiting mothers experienced at least one union disruption by age 12, compared to just 26 percent of children born to lower-educated married mothers. In the United Kingdom, the percentages are 53 percent and 39 percent, respectively.

A second common argument is that cohabitation becomes more stable (begins to look more like marriage) as it becomes more common in a society.

However, the findings did not support this notion. As the share of children born to cohabiting couples increased in a country, family instability also increased.

Laurie DeRose, one of the authors of the study, explains:

We find no evidence in this report to support the idea that as births to cohabiting parents become more common, as they have in the United States, marriage and cohabitation resemble each other in terms of stability for children. On average, marriage is associated with more family stability for children across the globe—even in countries where it is in retreat.

Cohabitation has grown dramatically in the United States over the last several decades. Today, about 25 percent of children are born to cohabiting parents. (Overall, 40 percent of children are born outside of marriage every year.)

A 2011 report from the Institute for American Values calls “the rise of cohabiting households with children … the largest unrecognized threat to the quality and stability of children’s family lives.”

Research shows that children in cohabiting households are more likely to be physically, sexually, and emotionally abused, and to be aggressive or display delinquent behaviors (such as substance abuse or committing property crime). They are also more likely to experience poverty and have poorer health.

Family stability matters for children, and marriage matters for family stability. Restoring a culture of marriage, particularly in communities where it has experienced the most breakdown, is thus crucial to improving children’s well-being.

To begin, policymakers should work to reduce marriage penalties, which are rife throughout the government means-tested welfare system. Beyond eliminating barriers to marriage, leaders at every level should take steps to strengthen marriage in their communities.

This article was originally posted at The Daily Signal.

Written by Hans Fiens

Imagine that you’re the commissioner of the NFL and a certain Dallas-based football team has been bringing shame upon the league with a litany of domestic abuse and DUI arrests. One day, an underling bursts into your office.

“Good news, Commissioner. Everybody on the Cowboys roster has stopped breaking the law!”

“That’s great,” you reply. “Did this happen because our ‘Stop Being a Terrible Person’ campaign finally worked?”

“Oh, uh, no,” the underling says. “It happened because the team’s plane just exploded.”

As this imaginary commissioner, how would you feel in this moment? Probably the same way I felt after learning that about the sex rates of unmarried millennials.

Millennials’ Sex Lives Are In Trouble

The average millennial has fewer sexual partners than both Gen Xers and the Boomers. In 1991, 54.1 percent of US high school students had had sexual intercourse. By 2015, that number dropped to 41.2. However, during approximately that same time frame, the rate of regular church attendance by Americans dropped by nearly ten points, while moral acceptance of extramarital sex increased. So a return to Biblical beliefs concerning sexuality is certainly not the cause of millennials’ increased avoidance of promiscuity.

What’s causing millennials to be less sexually active, then? As with any trend, there are numerous explanations. But the two biggest factors seem to be the copious amounts of pornography that millennials, in particular millennial men, have grown up consuming, and the widespread use of socially isolating social networking. Just take a look at this profile of a millennial man, courtesy of Tara Bahrampour:

Noah Patterson, 18, likes to sit in front of several screens simultaneously: a work project, a YouTube clip, a video game. To shut it all down for a date or even a one-night stand seems like a waste. “For an average date, you’re going to spend at least two hours, and in that two hours I won’t be doing something I enjoy,” he said.

It’s not that he doesn’t like women. “I enjoy their companionship, but it’s not a significant part of life,” said Patterson, a Web designer in Bellingham, Wash.

He has never had sex, although he likes porn. “I’d rather be watching YouTube videos and making money.” Sex, he said, is “not going to be something people ask you for on your résumé.”

Will This Trend Persist, Or Will Millennials Change?

For those who believe that sex is something that ought to take place only within the confines of marriage, it’s initially encouraging to hear that millennials are having less sex outside of marriage. It becomes profoundly discouraging, however, to learn that the cause is not a rediscovery of Christian morality, but having their plane shot down by the bazooka blast of smut and antisocial behavior.

This raises an important question: Is this a curious fad or a troubling trend? Will the millennial lack of interest in sex eventually correct itself, once we adjust to life in the internet age? Or will they be unable to pull themselves out of the screen-filled, porn-infested tar pit and rediscover the value of human companionship and physical love?

I worry that many won’t. That tar pit isn’t merely delaying millennials’ pursuit of procreation and human companionship—it’s grinding to a halt one of the most important cogs that moves that machine, a cog known as “developing an appreciation for feminine virtues.”

Marriage Creates Space For Real Love And Virtue

For example, the reason a Christian man asks out a cute young woman in his college Bible study group is because he’s pursuing sex, even if his intention is to not to have sex until they would be married. He sees an attractive woman. He experiences the desire to do what his body was designed for—to unite sexually with hers and to create life. And so he approaches her as the first step to fulfilling this biological need.

As men pursue women, however, they come to develop a more robust appreciation of what women have to offer them beyond physical beauty and sexual gratification. They become more exposed to the various feminine virtues—things like kindness, compassion, selflessness, loyalty, tenderness. And the more decent men encounter “the imperishable beauty of a quiet and gentle spirit,” as St Peter calls it, the more they come to value this inner beauty over raw sexuality.

Likewise, the more that decent women see men valuing their feminine virtues, the more they cultivate them and the more they seek the corresponding masculine virtues, such as bravery and self-sacrifice. We begin the mating dance by following our animalistic urges. But, during the tango, we become human as we discover what it means to love and serve and belong to each other.

Pornography Destroys The Dance And Ritual Of Marriage

So how do pornography and social media destroy the dance?

It’s important to remember that, for the average man, pursuing a woman is both awkward and terrifying. It’s awkward because, when a man asks a woman, “Can I buy you a drink?” he’s ultimately saying, “I want to mate with you, but I can’t just tell you that, so this is the stupid way I’m beginning the process of getting you to have my babies.” And it’s terrifying because, if a woman says, “no, thanks,” she’ll ultimately be saying, “I reject your offer of procreation and therefore declare that you have no value to me as a man.”

But despite these things, a man’s desire for sex still compels him to risk the humiliation and rejection, which sets him on the path to discovering the feminine virtues. Pornography, however, derails this process by becoming the sexual version of eating cereal for dinner instead of dining out on filet mignon—yes, of course, it’s an inferior substitute in every way, but the Cheerios are already in your pantry and you don’t have to do all the hard work that obtaining haute cuisine requires. Quite simply, porn gives men enough sexual satisfaction to conclude that it’s not worth the awkwardness and the terror of beginning the pursuit, nor is it worth the time or money to continue the pursuit. And when men don’t pursue actual, real women for sex, they don’t end up encountering the feminine virtues and therefore don’t develop a high value for them.

The Internet Prevents Us From Developing Relationships

Social media only compounds this problem. The more that social media pulls us away from actual people, the less we’re capable of seeing how much more valuable and rewarding true human interaction is. The more our eyes are locked onto notification-filled screens, the more we become unable to see the superiority of locking eyes with an actual human being, of feeling real emotions with that person, of sharing our hearts and our bodies with them. The more we eschew real human interactions, the more we convince ourselves that digital interactions are real.

For young men, porn convinces them that real women aren’t worth pursuing, while social media convinces them that not pursuing real women is perfectly normal. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise when many of the millennial men raised on this toxic combination aren’t interested in waking up from the digital coma—just as it shouldn’t come as a surprise that an increasing number of them can’t wake up from it even when they’re lying in bed with a real person.

Likewise, for women, social media shuts down the human interaction highway, which is the best avenue they have to display the gems of feminine kindness and compassion. Porn tells them, “the only thing you have that’s truly valuable is your body—and, oh by the way, we expect it to look as flawless as the ones belonging to the women in these videos.” So it shouldn’t come as a surprise when many young ladies choose to opt out of a sexual economy that devalues their greatest assets by inflating the worth of fantasy women and their digitized bodies.

It’s Not Too Late To Turn Off The Computer

I’m sure Roger Goodell would love to have a scandal-free Dallas Cowboys roster. But he wouldn’t want it if it came at the cost of 53 men’s lives. In the same way, as a pastor who teaches and believes that sex is a gift God has given to take place only within the confines of marriage, I would rejoice if America’s youth were becoming less sexually active because they’re finding God. There is, however, nothing to celebrate when they’re becoming less sexually active because they’re losing their humanity.

But for those millennials stuck in the porn and social media tar pit, in particular millennial men, it’s not too late to rediscover what’s been lost. Shut your laptop. Turn off your phone. Go outside. Meet a girl. Ask her on a date. Pray for strength to avoid the seedy corners of the internet as you learn what it means to cherish the gems of her heart, gems that will continue shining even after the luster of her youth has faded. Ask her to marry you. Make your vows before God. Be fruitful and multiply, and be at peace.

The first and greatest romantic love song was performed by Adam in the garden of Eden. “This is at last bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” he sung about Eve.

It’s not too late for this to be your love song too.

Article originally published at TheFederalist.com.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently claimed in a press release that the cost of raising a child from birth through age 17 is $233,610, or almost $14,000 annually. As the father of seven children, let me say that this is utter nonsense.

Moreover, the USDA fails to identify the multiple benefits of raising children, such as the physical, spiritual, intellectual and emotional advantages. These benefits are not just unquantifiable, but inestimable. The value of raising, nurturing and training children far surpass the outlandish financial estimates of Washington D.C. bureaucrats.

With the USDA’s exaggerated estimates, how do we expect to encourage married couples to return to the healthy birth rate of more than 2.1 in the United States?  We’re shortsighted if we fail to see that the current U.S. trend is unsustainable and portends economic trouble, including lower living standards for most citizens. We simply have to look at Japan, Greece or Italy for a lesson in the detriments of low birth rates.

Federal officials are simply out-of-touch with Middle America. Most of us don’t spend hundreds of dollars on a hammer and we spend far less than they estimate to raise our each child every year.

Maybe the federal government can learn something from working families?

In June of 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples could not be denied marriage licenses by states. However, on December 8, 2016, the Arkansas Supreme Court correctly ruled that the Obergefell decision should not be used to re-write all state laws relating to family, parenthood, and vital records, when they are unrelated to the issuance of marriage licenses.

The decision, in the case of Smith v. Pavan, overturned a lower court decision that had declared the Arkansas law governing birth registration unconstitutional. The statute in question says that in the absence of a court order or agreement by all parents and spouses involved,

“If the mother was married at the time of either conception or birth or between conception and birth the name of the husband shall be entered on the certificate as the father of the child.”

The law had been challenged by three lesbian couples. In all three cases, one of the women had borne a child who was conceived through artificial insemination involving an anonymous sperm donor as the father. When the children were born, the couples sought to have the names of both women listed on the birth certificate as the child’s parents. The Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) refused.

The legal principle involved has long been known as the “presumption of paternity.” If a married woman gives birth to a child, her husband is presumed to be the father of that child. Something which is factually true in the vast majority of cases is simply presumed to be true under the law.

Advocates of same-sex marriage and homosexual parenting, however, seek to convert the “presumption of paternity” into a gender-neutral “presumption of parentage.” Under this view, the legal spouse—regardless of sex—of a woman who gives birth is presumed to be the child’s other parent.

In other words, they would have the law go from presuming something that is almost always factually true to presuming something that cannot possibly be factually true—namely, that two women are both the biological mother of a newborn child.

Fortunately, the Arkansas Supreme Court rejected the absurd outcome of presuming the impossible.

In a model of judicial restraint, they interpreted the words of the statute by “giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language.” Noting that the dictionary definition of “husband” is “a married man,” and of “father” is “a man who has begotten a child,” they concluded that “the statute centers on the relationship of the biological mother and the biological father to the child, not on the marital relationship of husband and wife.”

The court’s opinion cited an affidavit by the ADH’s Vital Records State Registrar elaborating on the rationale for this approach:

The overarching purpose of the vital records system is to ensure that vital records, including birth certificates as well as death certificates and marriage certificates, are accurate regarding the vital events that they reflect…

Identification of biological parents through birth records is critical to ADH’s identification of public health trends, and it can be critical to an individual’s identification of personal health issues and genetic conditions.

To emphasize the significance of—and differences between—biological motherhood and biological fatherhood, the Arkansas Supreme Court also cited language from a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a question of citizenship for children born out of wedlock and outside the United States to one American parent. Ruling (in Nguyen v. INS) that Congress could treat children of American fathers differently from children of American mothers, the Court said,

[t]o fail to acknowledge even our most basic biological differences—such as the fact that a mother must be present at birth but the father need not be—risks making the guarantee of equal protection superficial, and so disserving it. Mechanistic classification of all our differences as stereotypes would operate to obscure those misconceptions and prejudices that are real… The difference between men and women in relation to the birth process is a real one, and the principle of equal protection does not forbid [legislative recognition of that fact].

Ironically, the author of the decision in Nguyen was Justice Anthony Kennedy—who also wrote the Obergefell decision on marriage.

LGBT activists, of course, will deplore the Arkansas decision. Perhaps, in the wake of Donald Trump’s election to the presidency, they and other liberals will even be tempted to lump it together with what they stereotype as other acts of “bigotry” committed by “angry white males.” Yet the Arkansas Supreme Court has a female majority—four women and three men. Three of the four women joined the majority opinion in the birth certificate case, while two of the three men dissented. And the opinion of the court was written by Associate Justice Josephine Linker Hart—a female pioneer in the legal profession in Arkansas, an Army veteran, and a woman with Cherokee ancestry.

The truth is that every child has both a mother and a father—even if the latter is only an anonymous sperm donor. The truth is that two women (or two men) alone can never conceive a new human life. The truth is that a birth certificate or registration is supposed to record the factual circumstances of a biological event—the birth of a child.

When the Obergefell decision was handed down, those celebrating it used a simple slogan: “Love Wins.” (The fallacy in that was the assumption that any and every relationship characterized by “love” is constitutionally entitled to be designated a “marriage.”)

Pro-family Americans can be grateful that, at least in the Arkansas Supreme Court, “Truth Wins.”

This article was originally posted at the FRC blog.

Last month a Woolworth store in Germany made headlines in the UK and in the U.S. for proclaiming itself to be a “Muslim” store, and therefore it would no longer carry Christmas items. There’s more to the story – as the local management of the store defended itself by saying that there was such little demand for the Christmas products, they decided the shelf space was better used with other items. You can read about it here, here and here and decide for yourself what to believe.

Christmas as controversy is not new, of course, as the debate over whether to say “happy holidays” or “merry Christmas” has long been a part of American pop culture. It even made an appearance in the 2016 presidential campaign as the question whether saying “merry Christmas” is offensive to some delicate ears. Donald Trump said often on the campaign trail that if he was elected, “we’re gonna be saying Merry Christmas at every store … You can leave happy holidays at the corner”:

“I love Christmas. I love Christmas. You go to stores, you don’t see the word Christmas. It says happy holidays all over. I say, ‘Where’s Christmas?’ I tell my wife, ‘Don’t go to those stores.’”

With the election of Trump, a writer at New York Magazine weighed in:

And so it is apparently ‘safe’ for Christians to be rude to their Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or nonreligious friends and colleagues by regaling them with sectarian holiday greetings. The war on common courtesy has apparently been subordinated to the war on ‘political correctness.’

Dennis Prager, who is Jewish, has a different take (the video is embedded below):

I’m a non-Christian. I’m a Jew. Christmas is not a religious holy day for me. But I’m an American, and Christmas is a national holiday in my country. It is, therefore, my holiday – though not my holy day – as much as it is for my fellow Americans who are Christian. That’s why it’s not surprising that it was an American Jew, Irving Berlin, who wrote “White Christmas,” one of America’s most popular Christmas songs. In fact, according to a Jewish musician writing in the New York Times, “Almost all the most popular Christmas songs were written by Jews.” Apparently all these American Jews felt quite included by Christmas!

By not wishing me a Merry Christmas, you are not being inclusive. You are excluding me from one of my nation’s national holidays.

. . .

The vast majority of Americans who celebrate Christmas, and who treat non-Christians so well, deserve better.

So, please say ‘Merry Christmas’ and ‘Christmas party’ and ‘Christmas vacation.’ If you don’t, you’re not ‘inclusive.’ You’re hurtful.

The American Family Institute has posted a version of a naughty and nice list with its “Rating the Top Retailers and How They Market to Christmas Shoppers.” They divide up American businesses into three categories: Nice, Marginal, and Naughty — this is from their website:

Among the Nice “5-Star” companies listed are Walmart, Cracker Barrel and Hobby Lobby. At the other end of the spectrum — the Naughty kids — are companies like Barnes & Noble, Best Buy and Pet Smart. Pet Smart may carry Santa suits for dogs, but we all know Santa doesn’t exactly serve to emphasize the “Christ” in “CHRISTmas,” so that doesn’t count.

Before you head out the door for another round of Christmas shopping, visit the American Family Institute’s “Naughty (and Marginal) and Nice” list. AFA even invites recommendations for their list, though they don’t include local or regional companies — only nationally-recognized companies.

Merry Christmas!

Written by Scott Phelps

Marriage rates in the United States are at an all-time low. Reported cases of sexually transmitted diseases are at an all-time high. These two statistics share a clear and direct relationship, although you would not know it from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s annual reporting on the STD epidemic. What is so hard about saying what is true?

In 1983 there were no reported cases of chlamydia. In 1984, the CDC recorded 7,594 cases nationwide, and after 32 years of prevention efforts, reported chlamydial infections have reached an all time high of 1,526,658 cases in 2015. That’s an increase of 20,103 percent.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, taxpayers spend $94,000,000 per year on STD prevention through the CDC. Despite this “prevention” effort, the CDC claims that: “The cost of STDs to the U.S. health care system is estimated to be as much as $16 billion annually.” This is a case study in failed governmental policy.

To no one’s surprise, STD prevention director Dr. Jonathan Mermin explains that the problem is a lack of funding: “STD prevention resources across the nation are stretched thin,” he said. “In recent years more than half of state and local STD programs have experienced budget cuts.”

This is the typical government response: “We need more money!” One might reasonably ask, “What did you do with the money we already gave you?” No. The CDC doesn’t need more money. It needs common sense, rooted in fact.

In releasing the data on record high STD rates, the CDC offers the following solution:

“Talk openly about STDs, get tested regularly, and reduce risk by using condoms or practicing mutual monogamy if sexually active.”

Really? That’s it? This is the same thing the CDC says every year as STDs continue to rise. The American people should mark the new CDC report with an “F” and hand it back to the agency along with this teacher’s note: “Your paper is missing the key component in solving this problem.”

That missing component is the clear, objective fact that the best way to avoid STDs is to reserve all sexual activity for marriage.

Remarkably, the 154-page CDC report does not mention the word marriage. Not once. This is problematic because marriage is the only true remedy for the spread of STDs. Those who save sex for marriage and remain faithful eliminate their risk of exposure to STDs. Done.

As marriage rates continue to fall, the corresponding increase in STDs rates is not coincidental, and until 1999 the CDC regularly acknowledged this clear association. The 1995-1999 CDC STD Surveillance Reports state: “During the past two decades, the age of initiation of sexual activity has steadily decreased and age at first marriage has increased, resulting in increases in premarital sexual experience. …”

Non-marital sexual activity with multiple partners is the singular cause of the proliferation of STDs and yet for some reason all CDC surveillance reports since 1999 omit the above statement and make no reference to marriage at all. Instead we get, “talk openly about STDs” and the obligatory, “use condoms.”

If the CDC wants to get serious about STD prevention, it can simply tell the truth: Choosing to reserve all sexual activity for marriage is the safest, healthiest, lifestyle.

Scott Phelps is executive director of the Abstinence & Marriage Education Partnership. Article originally published at Chicago.SunTimes.com.

For years, a steady drumbeat of Christian pastors, musicians, and authors have announced they’ve “evolved” on the issue of homosexuality. Authors like Matthew Vines and more recently, Jen Hatmaker, musician Nicole Nordeman and Yale philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff argue that the Bible doesn’t actually condemn same-sex “marriage.” Christians, they say, should bless such unions as “holy.”

Many of them have said that even if we don’t agree, we shouldn’t make it a big deal. We can “agree to disagree,” they say. Typically, they offer one of three reasons.

First, this issue, they say, is like the mode of baptism, or worship styles, or wine versus grape juice in the Lord’s Supper. In other words, homosexuality is a matter of preference, an area where believers can respect one another’s differences.

But this doesn’t make sense for either side. Advocates of same-sex “marriage” say it’s a human right. If that’s true, the traditional view is not just mistaken, it’s dangerous! Opponents say that acts of homosexuality are sinful. If that’s true, then Christians can’t agree to disagree either.

Second, we often hear that the Church is evolving on this issue, especially every time a Christian celebrity changes their minds. But the vast majority of evangelicals still hold to the traditional view, and they’re not changing their minds anytime soon. As my “BreakPoint This Week” cohost, Ed Stetzer, points out in Christianity Today, “Evangelical organizations across the spectrum are making clear where they stand on marriage.” Groups like the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Christianity Today, and even more progressive social-justice-minded organizations like World Vision and Fuller Seminary, have all unambiguously committed to hold the line on this issue.

As have denominations. Virtually every evangelical communion has reaffirmed God’s design for sex and marriage.  Even in the United Methodist Church, long considered a stronghold of liberal theology, and in the worldwide Anglican communion, the marriage debate has taken a conservative turn as traditional members in Africa and elsewhere exert their influence.

But, some will reply, “If Christians don’t all agree on what marriage is, you can’t say there’s such a thing as ‘the Christian position.’” But Christian truth isn’t made of what people who call themselves Christians say. It’s revealed truth, made known through creation, through Scripture, ultimately through Christ—each of which are quite clear about what makes us male and female, what marriage is, and about sexual morality.

Which is why Christians never questioned marriage until culturally yesterday. A post-sexual revolution claim just a few years old does nothing to negate the consistent Christian witness about marriage throughout all of history.

Which brings up the final argument, “If marriage is a core part of Christian teaching,” we hear, “why isn’t it in the creeds or the councils? Why did no one talk about it until now?” The answer is, because no one questioned what marriage is until now—anywhere, much less in the Church.

Throughout history, the need to clarify certain Christian doctrines has almost always arisen because of challenges. No one thought we needed a canon, until Marcion suggested some books weren’t Scripture. No one thought we needed to clarify Jesus’ place in the Godhead, until the Arian heresy. In each case, what was upheld wasn’t a theological innovation, but a clarification of the consistent Christian teaching.

So next time someone says, let’s just agree to disagree about this issue, say, “No. Instead, let’s agree to love each other and to pursue the truth together.” That’s a much better way forward.

Article originally published at Breakpoint.org.

Written by Tony Perkins

America may recognize same-sex marriage now — but not because voters asked it too! And if the Left thinks the Supreme Court has finally decided the issue, they’re in for a major surprise. Turns out, the court of public opinion has its own verdict on the subject — and new polling shows it’s anything but liberal.

A year and a half into this experiment in judicial activism, the opinion of most voters hasn’t budged. When asked by Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research if they agreed with this statement — “I believe marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman” — a solid 53 percent agreed. That’s a 16-point difference between those who disagreed at 37 percent (another 10 percent were undecided). No wonder liberals had to win same-sex marriage through the courts. It isn’t nearly as popular as the Left insists it is! Sixteen months into this illegitimate ruling, nothing about the people’s opinion has changed. According to Wilson, the 53 percent support for natural marriage is identical to what it was pre-Obergefell. Even the five justices of the Supreme Court haven’t managed to move the needle on America’s views!

For once in her life, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was right. If it weren’t for the U.S. Supreme Court forcing this decision on America, redefining marriage would have taken years for the Left to accomplish — if ever. “Legislatively, we couldn’t really succeed,” she admitted in May, “but from the courts and the rest… that victory has been won.” For years, the media managed to create this phony narrative of support — even when ballot boxes and state laws told another story. It’s encouraging to see that even when the laws change, people’s understanding of right and wrong do not. Obviously, voters — especially conservative Christians — are looking for politicians who will stand up to the cultural elites and their radical agenda.

That may be one reason why Donald Trump enjoyed such overwhelming support. As the poll goes on to say, nearly six in 10 Trump voters were swayed by the pro-life, pro-religious liberty planks of the GOP platform. And, as someone who served on the RNC Platform Committee, I can tell you that the 2016 document is the most conservative it’s ever been on every issue, including marriage. So when 66 percent of voters tell pollsters that the “Government should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage between one man and one woman as they live their daily lives at work and in the way they run their businesses,” it’s really no surprise that Donald Trump enjoyed the record-breaking evangelical support he did. He was the only candidate in the race that showed his commitment to religious freedom, especially when it comes to giving churches the ability to speak freely about politics from the pulpit (which 53 percent support).

As I told Fox News’s Todd Starnes, the Republican Party’s platform positions on the unborn and religious liberty were the bridge between Donald Trump and Christian conservatives. And he sealed that deal in the final debate when he vividly described a partial-birth abortion and pledged to appoint pro-life justices. If the liberal press had bothered to listen to what voters believe — instead of telling them what to believe — this election wouldn’t have been nearly as shocking. Because if there’s one overwhelming message everyone should have heard on Tuesday, it’s this: the media, the courts, and the Left don’t speak for the American people.

Tony Perkins is the president of Family Research Council.

This article was originally posted at the FRC blog.

Conservatives, who warned that the arguments for same-sex marriage had no stopping point, were often mocked, dismissed, or ignored when we spoke of polygamy, incest, or polyamory relationships demanding special rights.   Now, many same-sex marriage advocates have admitted that the slippery slope argument was true.

Some are setting the stage for special rights and recognition for multiple partner marriages in the same way they did for homosexual marriage. Notice how this homosexual activist lays the victimization groundwork in favor of misunderstood multiple partner relationships.   In a recent article called “Why Polyamorous People Fear Coming Out” she writes:

“Not long ago, I found myself chatting with a friend about the logistics of coming out to one’s coworkers. Given that I’m queer, and he’s a straight, cisgender man, it’d be reasonable to expect that it was my coming out that happened to be up for discussion. Reasonable, but in this case wrong: The coming out in question involved my friend opening up to coworkers about being one-third of a polyamorous triad.

What if he wanted to invite coworkers to his home for drinks? Was it possible to have people over without that awkward conversation—or was coming out going to be necessary if he wanted to include coworkers in his life outside the office?

To monogamous people, the idea of coming out as non-monogamous, or polyamorous, might seem like a strange one.   Sure, it might be something you tell a friend (particularly a friend you’re interested in having sex with), but do coworkers, or family, or the world at large really need to know?   The idea that a non-monogamous family could possibly provide a healthy, positive environment for children is unfathomable: Wouldn’t young minds be warped by constant exposure to sex dungeons and raunchy threeways?

It’s these very stereotypes that make it difficult for non-monogamous people—particularly ones whose extracurricular relationships rarely make it past the casual stage—to fathom being public about their relationship status. Yet it’s also these stereotypes that makes coming out as non-monogamous—and, in the process, normalizing the idea of relationship structures other than two people exclusively bonded for life—feel so important to many who’ve chosen to reject monogamy.

If you’re not even given to telling the world about your one true love, publicly posting about the five people you’ve formed a polycule with can feel like an exercise in exhibitionism. For others, the decision to remain in the closet came out of an urge for self-protection, or a desire to protect one’s partners. Being openly non-monogamous can mean damaging friendships, relationships with family, one’s professional reputation, and just generally running the risk of being perceived as a perpetually horny pervert incapable of respecting boundaries.

The relief at being able to live openly—to invite coworkers to your house without having to explain why three adults share one bedroom, or to be openly affectionate with your boyfriend without people thinking you’re cheating on your wife—is a huge part of why being out is non-negotiable to many non-monogamists.”

The article closes by citing authors who are laying the groundwork with calls for “equality” for the misunderstood non-monogamous lifestyle. It is a plea to accept people as normal who live with, and have sex with, multiple partners.   No one should really be surprised when calls for “marriage” and special rights for bigamy, adultery, or polygamy start to appear in courts, city councils, or state legislatures.

When society, schools, the media, and many government entities equate anyone who draws a line on traditional marriage with a “bigot,” how do we say ‘no’ to anything one can think up now, regardless of the immorality or negative impact it has upon children and societal heath?

This article was originally posted by AFA of Indiana

Under the “progressive” leadership of Barack Obama and his like-minded “social justice” warriors throughout all levels of government, we have entered an era of lawlessness unprecedented in American history. This is no more apparent than in Alabama where Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court has been unlawfully removed from the bench at the hands of liberal activists on Alabama’s Court of the Judiciary (COJ).

The case is under appeal.

This miscarriage of justice was carried out at the behest of the left-wing extremist Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an anti-Christian activist organization that seeks to undermine, if not extinguish altogether, the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

To add insult to injury, Judge Moore’s law clerks were likewise terminated without warning or explanation late last week. The Chief quickly issued a statement in response: “My appeal is still pending but Justice Stuart [interim chief] is acting like she has already decided the appeal against me. I have asked Justices Stuart, Bolin, Main and Shaw to be recused from hearing my case. Justice Stuart’s action against me personally and the subsequent firing of the staff attorneys I hired is troublesome and such actions prejudge the case. Instead of acting as though my appeal has already been decided, I call upon these justices to recuse. None of them should have any role in appointing successor justices to hear my appeal.”

Chief Justice Moore further remarked, “I have been targeted for my belief in marriage, a belief shared by the majority of Americans. No one can point to any illegal, unlawful or unethical aspect of my four-page Administrative Order. That order was a status report on the case. A justice should not be removed from office because of a political agenda.”

The facts of the case are clear and beyond dispute. Chief Justice Moore was arbitrarily removed from the bench for a “2016 Administrative Order [that] was merely a status report of a pending case before the Alabama Supreme Court,” notes Mat Staver, chairman and founder of Liberty Counsel. “The order did not change the status quo. It did not create any new obligation or duty. To suspend Chief Justice Moore for the duration of his term is a miscarriage of justice and we will appeal this case to the Alabama Supreme Court. This case is far from over,” he added.

On September, 30 the COJ issued a decision on the trumped-up charges against Chief Moore. The Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) requested that he be removed from the bench. Under the COJ rules, removal requires a unanimous 9-0 vote by the members of the COJ, which is made up of judges, a lawyer and laypeople. Absent a 9-0 unanimous vote, the COJ cannot remove a judge from the bench. But, in an unbelievable violation of the law, the COJ suspended without pay Chief Justice Moore for the remainder of his term, which runs through January 2019. When his term expires, he will be ineligible to run for election as judge again because of his age. So the suspension until the end of his term is a de facto removal from the bench. This is both an unethical and illegal circumvention of the letter of the law.

“To suspend Chief Justice Moore for the rest of his term is the same as removal. The COJ lacked the unanimous votes to remove the Chief, so the majority instead chose to ignore the law and the rules,” concludes Staver.

The COJ’s disgraceful actions have resulted in a tremendous backlash among both the majority of Alabama voters, as well as legislators on both sides of the aisle. This has put both the SPLC and the COJ on the defensive. In a rambling screed written for Al.com, SPLC president Richard Cohen betrays his personal vendetta against Chief Justice Moore, his lack of knowledge about the U.S. Constitution and the laws of Alabama, as well as an astounding level of anti-Christian bigotry.

“Moore attempted to put his personal religious beliefs above the rule of law,” writes Cohen. “The United States has always been defined by a fundamental belief in the rule of law,” he adds, evidently oblivious to the jaw-dropping level of irony and hypocrisy found within his words.

Cohen goes on to slander Chief Moore, smearing him as “intoxicated with his own self-righteousness” and maligning him as having “disgraced his office.”

In fact, Cohen gets only one thing right, noting: “The court heard the case against Moore and rendered a decision it likely knew would be deeply unpopular across the state.”

Indeed, it’s little wonder the COJ knew its decision would be deeply unpopular. Most politically-motivated hit jobs are. Especially when they’re illegal.

Still, the blowback has begun and legislators are moving to undo the damage to the rule of law committed by the SPLC and its COJ cohorts. “This group of individuals are not accountable to the voters of Alabama,” observed Alabama GOP Chairman Terry Lathan in a statement. “Their charge as a body is to address and make decisions on corruption cases involving judges in Alabama. At no time has this case been about corruption,” he added.

“Judge Moore was elected, twice, by the citizens of our state. In light of this, two groups who are unaccountable to the voters have overstepped boundaries in suspending a statewide elected judge. On May 21, 2016, the Alabama Republican Party passed a resolution strongly opposing the removal of Chief Justice Moore.”

“On August 27, 2016, the Alabama Republican Party passed a resolution calling for the Alabama executive, legislative and judicial branches of government to enact and implement a law for the election of all members of the Judicial Inquiry Commission by vote of the people of Alabama.”

“We stand by our resolution of support for Judge Moore and our resolution to call for a vote of the people regarding the election of all members to the Judicial Inquiry Commission,” concluded Lathan.

With both potential legislation and the appeal pending, the Roy Moore saga continues. Will the rule of law be reestablished in Alabama, or will politically-motivated witch hunts such as this represent the future in the heart of Dixie?

If Alabama voters have any say, I expect to see justice done and this corrupt decision reversed.

Written by Becky Akers

Those stodgy Founding Fathers! Not only did they study hard, work harder, and marry one woman for life, they also insisted on – get this – morality. As in obeying the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, and the basic moral teachings of the Bible in general. So strongly did they venerate morality that they frequently observed its unbreakable link with liberty. They believed that moral people alone remain politically free.