Uh oh, somebody at the Today Show didn’t get the message from the Ministry of Truth. Last week, a panel of four Today Show talking heads called the human creature with human organs, a human head, human limbs, human features, and human expressions growing inside of a woman a “baby.” #HumanHeadsWillRoll Stacey Abrams is not going to be happy about that.

Science-denier, election-denier, presidential-wannabe, softcore porn writer, and conspiracy-theorist nonpareil Stacey Abrams thinks Americans are not only deplorable but gullible. Last week she startled the nation with this pronouncement:

There is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks. It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.

In her peculiar conspiracy theory, who designed the “manufactured sound to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body”? What is her evidence for this nefarious plot? As an aside, does Abrams need to be on some meds?

One wonders if Abrams conferred with Calculated Carnage—also known as Planned Parenthood (PP)—on her bolus of truthiness. Until recently Planned Parenthood’s website said this about human fetal development at gestational weeks 5-6:

A very basic beating heart and circulatory system develop

That was then. This is now:

A part of the embryo starts to show cardiac activity. It sounds like a heartbeat on an ultrasound, but it’s not a fully-formed heart — it’s the earliest stage of the heart developing.

PP sophists desperately hope Americans are as scientifically ignorant as Abrams pretends to be. PP hopes that Americans don’t know what part of the human embryo produces “cardiac” activity and that Americans believe upon full developmental maturity a body part turns into something wholly different.

Unfortunately for the PP sophists, Americans do know, for example, that when babies are born prematurely, their still-developing body parts that produce respiratory activity are lungs. Many Americans understand that a developing human heart is as a much a human heart as a developing human is, in objective reality, a human. If still-developing human hearts were not human hearts, then body-snatchers and research institutions wouldn’t be paying PP top dollars for them.

Abrams isn’t alone in coming up with strained rhetorical contrivances to avoid humanizing tiny humans. This past February, New York Times staff writer Roni Caryn Rabin described the sound mothers hear on an ultrasound at six weeks as being produced by “a primitive tube of cardiac cells that emit electric pulses and pump blood.”

In her elaborate attempt to convince people that an organized, complex, self-directed mass of “cardiac cells that emit electric pulses and pump blood” is nothing whatsoever like a beating human heart, Rabin elaborates:

The electric activity begins at around six weeks in a tube of cells that will become a heart, after multiple gyrations.

It will bend and loop and twist itself into an S shape. Thick cushions of embryonic tissue will grow toward one another to create walls, and a ridge on the floor of the ventricle will rise to meet them to partition the heart. If all goes well, four chambers and valves will form by the ninth or 10th week of pregnancy, and the heart will continue developing throughout gestation. But a heartbeat’s familiar “lub-dub, lub-dub” sound is created by the closing of the heart’s valves, which do not exist in the six-week-old cardiac tube.

Is that the medical term for the complex development of the human heart: “gyrations”? I thought gyrations were what Elvis’s wayward pelvis did.

At least as noteworthy as Rabin’s emphatic assertion that THERE IS NO FOUR-CHAMBERED HEART INSIDE ANY SIX-WEEK-OLD HUMAN, is her admission that “if” all goes well, those pesky chambers and valves will be present by the ninth or tenth week of pregnancy.

Since Abrams supports the legalized slaughter of tiny humans throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy for any or no reason, the age at which a human heart has four chambers and beats means nothing to her.

As of Jan. 24, 2022, Dr. Vincenzo Berghella, Director of the Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University writing on the well-known website Baby Center said this:

a baby’s heartbeat can be detected by transvaginal ultrasound as early as 3 to 4 weeks after conception, or 5 to 6 weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period.

YIKES! “Baby”? “Heartbeat”? What was Dr. Berghella saying? And why did Baby Center even have a man writing about pregnancy. Sheesh.

By July 20, 2022, writer Karen Miles—not a doctor—had changed the section to imply a more palatable, less humanish development:

You may be able to see the beating of cells in the heart tube for the first time when you’re about 6 weeks pregnant. … At 5 to 6 weeks of pregnancy, there’s a flickering of cells within the embryo’s torso. This flickering is the developing heart tube. At this point, the heart isn’t the four-chambered organ we’re familiar with.

Can’t say the word “beating.” Wouldn’t be prudent. “Beating” might suggest to women that there’s a human with a life-sustaining heart inside her. Instead, Miles used the word “flickering,” which means “to move unsteadily or irregularly.”

Prying itself from the conspiracy to control women, in June 2021, ABC News said that Texas’ heartbeat law “bans abortion once the rhythmic contracting of fetal cardiac tissue — aka the ‘fetal heartbeat’ — can be detected.” “Fetal heartbeat” was in scare quotes. “Rhythmic contracting of fetal cardiac tissue” was not.

The terrifying conspiracy to “convince the world that men have the right to take control of women’s bodies” is ubiquitous, hiding in plain sight for all the tin-foil hat-accoutered paranoiacs to see. WebMD says that at week 6 “your baby’s tiny heart has started to beat.”

Healthline states that “A fetal heartbeat may first be detected by a vaginal ultrasound as early as 5 1/2 to 6 weeks.”

Medline Plus states that at gestational weeks 6-7 a “Baby’s heart continues to grow and now beats at a regular rhythm. This can be seen by vaginal ultrasound.”

The American Pregnancy Association says that “Generally, from [gestational age] 6 ½ -7 weeks [fetal age: 5 weeks] is the time when a heartbeat can be detected.”

Maybe one day mad pink-hatters will stomp their jackbooted feet and shriek, “It’s not a baby!” until they stomp a hole in the ground and disappear into the dark Upside Down where non-sense and feelings rule, and evil is relished as good. In that day, women will let their babies’ hearts keep beating.

Are today’s journalists and news outlets doing their jobs well? According to  journalists themselves, yes. According to the public, no.

A recent survey from the Pew Research Group highlighted the significant disconnect between those who write the news and the rest of us who read them. One of the most interesting findings of the survey was the relative satisfaction of journalists within their industry versus the relative dissatisfaction of those who consume their work. Sixty-five percent of journalists said they believe that news outlets “report the news accurately,” while a mere 22 percent of the public expressed satisfaction with the accuracy of news reporting.

Pew’s survey also queried journalists about their concerns for the future of press freedom. While 42 percent of journalists age 65 and up said they were “extremely concerned” about the trajectory of press freedom in the industry, a scant 20 percent of journalists age 18-29 registered the same level of concern. In other words, the unabashed censorship, the sloppy reporting, and the revisionist history that plagues our nation’s news outlets hardly concerns the next generation of journalists and reporters.

Despite the apparent disconnect between journalists’ perception of their own industry and the American public’s perception of the same, the survey revealed one interesting point on which the two perspectives were more closely aligned: how much the American public trusts their news outlets. Journalists estimated that 14 percent of the American public “has a great deal of trust in the information they get from news sources.” Similarly, only 29 percent of U.S. adults (non-journalists) said that they trust the information they get from news sources.

It’s apparent there is a crisis in journalism and the news industry, but what is causing it? One possible answer is that the American public has clearly seen through the thin veneer of respectability that once accompanied the news industry. The United States has a rich journalistic tradition: the 1st Amendment has accorded the free press an incredible degree of influence over the politics, culture, and trajectory of American society, and for many decades in our history, the press stewarded that privilege with dignity and wisdom. But the brakes have seemingly come off of journalism—there seems to be no limit to the degeneracy that the U.S.’s thought-leaders will publish and promote.  The average American citizen likely isn’t on board with drag shows for kids, for instance, so when their once-trusted news outlets begin to celebrate the depths of human depravity, they (wisely) look to alternative news sources.

One obvious example of this is the decline of CNN. Once a respected staple of American news reporting, CNN’s ratings are now at a seven-year low. Anderson Cooper, a face long associated with CNN, only averages a paltry 600,000 viewers during the 8:00 p.m. time slot; Tucker Carlson averages an astounding 3 million viewers on Fox News.

Doubtless, another cause of journalism’s crisis in public perception is the changing landscape faced by the industry. No longer are people only consuming news curated by large news outlets (New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Fox News). More and more, people are turning to non-traditional sources for their news. Especially for younger generations, podcasts, online blogs, Substack newsletters, and small independent news outlets have become the primary means of keeping up with current events. And for good reason—smaller news sources are less directly affected by public and government pressure and are often willing to report on unpopular (some would say intolerant or hateful) issues.

The dissemination of news via smaller outlets is a wonderful advantage—especially for Christians. No longer do Christians and conservatives need to rely on dishonest long-time news sources to stay informed about current events. Everyone is able to curate their own newsfeed so they can hear from fair, balanced sources without the fear of being ambushed by the woke nonsense we’ve grown accustomed to from mainstream news outlets.

Of course, this poses a challenge as well. How do we go about evaluating the sources we regularly read and listen to? Fortunately, there’s an easy answer to that question: every Christian has a responsibility to evaluate the information they take in by the unchanging standard of God’s Word. This is, of course, difficult at times, which is why it is of the utmost necessity that each and every one  of us finds a community of believers that shapes our worldview only according to God’s Word.

The Facebook Overlords are operating in overdrive. On Tuesday, August 16, I discovered that the FB Overlords had “fact-checked,” not one, not two, but three of the satirical memes I had posted over the past four days on my personal Facebook page. All of the memes satirized Biden’s proposed 87,000-member Schutzstaffel: the IRSS. This is a sure sign that Dems are quaking in their jackboots about how much the public hates their Inflation Reduction Act that spends buckets of hard-earned ducats on more bureaucrats, whose job will be to squeeze more money from Americans.

Enquiring minds wonder if Biden and his merry band of congressional pocket-pickers and Zuckerberg brown-nosers had a little confab with Zuck or his lackeys, begging them to do something—anything—to stop social media jokes. Luckily for Biden and congressional Democrats, it doesn’t take much to get the dour, humorless, and literal Overlords tasked with fact-checking satirical memes to start slapping scary “MISSING CONTEXT” stickers on posts willy-nilly.

Maybe the Overlords, overloaded with their censorship duties, farmed out their dirty work to Macedonian teens with time on their hands, or maybe the scary “MISSING CONTEXT” stickers—the next best thing to censorship—were slapped on by avatars in the Metaverse where real people go to die. Clearly, someone isn’t happy about viral jokes about the Democrats hiring an 87,000-member fiscal goon squad.

Here are the memes that got the Overloads all worked up:

Word to the Meta meme-slayers: All memes lack context. All cartoons lack context. All jokes lack context. Are the meme-slayers actually saying that Facebook kinda, sorta prohibits all memes, cartoons, and jokes?

Even satirical essays lack context. What would the meme-slayers do if someone posted Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal on Facebook?

And why do satirical memes about the IRSS generate such a fevered response from Facebook? Could it be that some Democrats and their collaborationist social media moguls fully understand the power of both social media and satire not only to reflect public sentiment but also to affect it?

Could it be that the Democratic Party and monopolistic leftwing social media seek to influence public opinion just as they influenced the 2020 election by burying news stories, spreading mis- and dis-information, and engaging in well-concealed algorithmic mischief?

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen tried to assuage the fears of the public, justifiably alarmed at the prospect of 87,000 new recruits into the IRSS army, while concomitantly fueling class division:

Specifically, I direct that any additional resources—including any new personnel or auditors that are hired—shall not be used to increase the share of small business or households below the $400,000 threshold that are audited relative to historical levels.

But the Heritage Foundation pokes a sharp stick into the sunshiny balloon Yellin tried to fly over the heads of deplorables:

But considering the sheer magnitude of 87,000 new IRS agents and an estimated $204 billion in new revenues from enforcement, is it possible for all those new audits and revenues to involve only taxpayers making over $400,000?

—Returning to 2010 audit rates for all individuals making over $400,000 would generate only 28%, or $9.9 billion, out of the estimated $35.3 billion in new IRS enforcement revenues in 2031.

—Even increasing recent audit rates 30-fold for taxpayers making over $400,000—including 100% audit rates on taxpayers with incomes over $10 million—still would fall more than 20% short of raising the estimated $35.3 billion in new revenues in 2031.

Sounds like Yellin, Biden, and congressional Democrats—including U.S. Senator Joe Manchin—have once again foisted on Americans a mess of fiscal pottage gussied up with some mis- and dis-information. And if some satirical social media jokes create problems for their political futures and their hopes for total control of American lives, those jokes must go.

This isn’t the first time FB Overlords have come unexpectedly to my tiny soapbox in the virtual public square. Like the Spanish Inquisition, they appeared and hauled me off to Meta-prison for 30 days because of this cartoon on the economy, claiming it violated their “standards” on (wait for it) “suicide”:

Silly me, I thought it was a cartoon about socialism and the economy. My apologies to all those people who contemplate suicide with a dinner fork.

Everyone who cares about the future of our declining republic seeks to influence public opinion. There’s nothing wrong with that. But there is something very wrong about the means the unholy alliance of the Democrat Party and social media use to achieve their ends—ends that include expanding the permanent, unelected, unaccountable government bureaucracy that has the power to destroy lives.

Written by Matthew White

A March 2022 article by comparitech.com reported that “the average American spends seven hours and four minutes looking at a screen every day.”

The same article also highlighted the fact that most Americans, 93.5%, “will use the internet to stream their favorite TV shows and movies.”

With screens so accessible and private and opportunities so abundant, it’s no wonder the global porn industry is worth an estimated $97 billion. An article at pornaddiction.com reported that “the average amount of the internet devoted to porn sites is estimated to be between 4% and 12%,” and “about 13% of web searches and 20% of mobile searches are related to porn.”

To say that people are inundated with filth in media today would be an understatement.

Because of the overwhelmingly media-saturated culture, one Christian ministry decided to offer alternative programming because so much of what is offered on other platforms is untrustworthy and offensive.

Having been around for 50 years, Vision Video is a familiar name in the Christian film industry, but as Bill Curtis, president of the company, became aware of the prominence of streaming, he knew he wanted to add a Christian presence there. Subsequently, Curtis debuted Redeem TV in March 2020.

Curtis, along with Rachel Hafner, marketing manager for Vision Video, spoke with The Stand about their new streaming platform.

The Stand: What is Redeem TV and what compelled you to offer this service?

Bill Curtis: Redeem TV is a donor-supported media streaming service. We have nearly 200,000 subscribers in 200 countries. Our primary goal is to serve families and children who are looking for wholesome, uplifting, enriching Christian media. As we became aware that DVDs were dying, we wanted a way to still be able to deliver the content we produce and distribute directly to homes for families.

TS: How is Redeem TV different from other similar streaming platforms?

BC: A major difference is that there’s no charge to sign up. It’s a free subscription. All that’s required is for the user to enter an email address.

There is additional content for donors, but only a small portion, and even that is eventually offered for free viewing. Most of the content is available at no charge.

TS: How are you able to provide content for free?

BC: Through our generous donors. People appreciate the service, and they want to support this kind of programming. We don’t require it, but we ask people to donate to support it, and enough do so that it makes it feasible.

I think people are beginning to wake up to big media corporations as they’ve come out publicly and stated what their intentions are and the kind of programs they want to provide.

TS: What kind of content can viewers expect to find on your platform?

Rachel Hafner: We have a wide range of content. We offer documentaries, family movies, kids’ shows, and dramas, just to name a few.

BC: To add to what Rachel mentioned, there will be Bible studies and biblical programs as well.

TS: Is the programming strictly Christian in nature?

BC: It’s not all specifically Christian, but it is all family safe.

For example, we just licensed the series Sue Thomas: F.B. Eye that aired on the PAX Network several years ago. That show was not specifically Christian, but it is family-safe entertainment.

We also have gospel-centered programming that challenges people to grow in their walk with Jesus.

TS: With many services, it is not necessarily the chosen show that’s the problem; it is the advertisements or commercials. With your service, would parents have any fear of inappropriate or objectionable commercials or ads?

RH: Redeem TV is ad-free. So there is no fear about what could be coming up in between any of the shows or things that you are watching.  What you click on is what you’re going to watch.

TS: Since Redeem TV is relatively new, only about two years old, are there any future plans or developments you would like to share?

BC: Our plans in the future are to continue to offer Redeem TV originals and to grow the customer base domestically and worldwide.

RH: Some exciting news is that with our popular show, Vindication, sort of a Christian version of CSI, we have a third season currently in production.

We also have two new series coming out. Chasing Revival just went live on the service in May. It explores how Christianity is spreading all over the world.

Our first original production, The Watchers, released in June. It examines the spiritual world of good versus evil and explores how evil is around us, but we may not be thinking of it in such a way.

TS: What kind of feedback have you gotten from current users?

RH: We have been blessed with lovely subscribers who vocalize their thoughts and feelings, and they have been quite positive and just thankful.

As Bill mentioned before, so much of mainstream media promotes and shows things that parents don’t approve of or would rather their kids not be exposed to.

So they’re just very thankful that they have the option to watch Redeem TV and be able to trust that what they’re showing their kids is going to be safe for their eyes and their ears to hear.

This article first appeared in the July 2022 print edition of AFA’s The Stand.

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court of the United States overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which fabricated the “right to privacy,” making abortion legal throughout the nation.

The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, centered around a Mississippi law that banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy and has now put the battle to save pre-born human lives at the state level. It is no longer a protected “right” at the federal level. The case was decided by a 6 to 3 decision and means that the only abortion clinic in Mississippi will have to shut it’s doors when the state’s trigger law banning abortions takes effect in July.

Within the first few pages of the 213-page decision, Justice Samuel Alito stated there is no constitutional right to abortion. There is no federal protection of a civil “right” to kill pre-born babies.

Illinois Family Institute celebrates the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and the 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood that established that states cannot ban pre-viability abortions, i.e., those done before a child can survive outside the womb.

Governor J.B. Pritzker has made it abundantly clear that he intends to make the state of Illinois an abortion sanctuary. He, with the help of pro-abortion legislators, intends to force Illinois taxpayers to pay for all abortions.

Illinois Democrats have already removed all safeguards in the Land of Lincoln by repealing the Parental Notice of Abortion law.

Now they want physician assistants, nurses, and midwives along with other healthcare personnel to be legally able to commit abortions in Illinois in order to accommodate the flood of women coming across state lines. And several companies are offering to pay for women to travel to abortion states to kill their babies. Some pro-life leaders think that Illinois abortion numbers will increase by 25k to 30k a year.

In the ABC Nightly News segment below, they highlight the abortion mill in Fairview Heights and rightly point out that they are at the epicenter of this spiritual and political battle. In her report, Rachel Scott claims “the phones keep ringing. The staff are helping out-of-state patience secure transportation and hotels.” Dr. Colleen McNicholas admits that they are ground zero of this battle between life and death. She pridefully reports that they are facilitating the death of an unborn human being for women in “Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Mississippi.”

Our work to protect life is just beginning. Abortion cheerleaders are determined to make Illinois the destination point for the Midwest. Proverbs 24:11 exhorts us to “deliver those who are drawn toward death, and hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.” We MUST respond with the love and compassion of Jesus Christ to rescue innocent children and their mothers.

Illinois Family Institute upholds the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. Please join us in the fight to protect the most innocent among us.

The Biden administration calls it the “Disinformation Governance Board” (DGB—word on the streets is that it was going to be named the “Knowledge Governance Board,” but “KGB” was already taken).

The rest of America calls it the Ministry of Truth, a title derived from George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984.

In a rollout almost as wildly inept as Biden’s exit from Afghanistan, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced its new effort to combat “disinformation.” After the past decade of Democrats spreading misinformation and disinformation, aided and abetted by leftist collaborators at the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC, conservatives are justifiably wary about the DGB.

While leftists have sent to their memory hole the mis- and dis- information they spread like manure all across the fruited plains, conservative Americans have not forgotten it.

Conservatives remember the mis- and dis- excrement leftists spread about the cause of the Benghazi attacks, Trumps alleged collusion with Russia (including Adam Schiff’s bald-faced lies), the lurid tall tale about urinating Russian prostitutes, Hunter Biden’s laptop, the origins of the Wuhan virus, and the efficacy of masks. No conservative in American believes this is the kind of misinformation or disinformation targeted by any agency under a Democrat administration.

Leftists in America’s power centers have a habit of spreading lies that they know are lies about conservatives. Leftists in America’s power centers have a habit of deeming stories critical of leftists “misinformation” or “disinformation” without doing any research to confirm their premature conclusions. And leftists in America’s power centers have a habit of justifying their refusal to report stories favorable to conservatives by deeming them misinformation or disinformation.

The timing of this announcement compounds conservative suspicions. The announcement came just before mid-term elections, just after the Biden administration announced it will be stopping Title 42 border expulsions, and just after Elon Musk purchased Twitter, vowing to make it a free speech platform.

Musk raised the hope that there will be no more algorithmic shenanigans that many believe were used by leftist-controlled social media platforms to throw the election to a senile recluse who refused to campaign and yet won by an alleged landslide.

And at the very moment that conservative hopes for the same kind of freedom leftists enjoy were raised, the DGB was born.

If the birth of the DGB weren’t bad enough, just take a look at the unprincipled, flakey head of the DGB: Nina Jankowicz who belts out obscene show tunes like a Broadway wannabe.

U.S. Senator Ron Johnson sent a letter to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas expressing concerns about both the Jankowicz and the DGB that many Americans share:

Ms. Jankowicz herself has been a beacon of misinformation online.  She has published multiple tweets furthering the false media narrative about the Hunter Biden laptop. In one tweet she wrote, “IC has a high degree of confidence that the Kremlin used proxies to push influence narratives, including misleading or unsubstantiated claims about President Biden, to US media, officials, and influencers, some close to President Trump. A clear nod to the alleged Hunter laptop.” In another, she referred to the origins of how the media came into possession of the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop as a “fairy tale about a laptop repair shop.” She has also posted tweets pushing the Trump-Russia collusion hoax and another implying the United States is as corrupt as Ukraine.

Now, DHS is creating a board to counter misinformation focusing on irregular migration and Russia and appointing a purveyor of misinformation to lead that effort. DHS is taking this action just weeks after announcing its plans to stop Title 42 expulsions at the southwest border, which has sparked a surge of illegal migrant crossing at the border, with CBP reporting an average of over 7,000 encounters a day in March 2022 compared with over 5,900 a day in February 2022. DHS even concedes it needs to be prepared to encounter 18,000 migrants a day at the southwest border once Title 42 is lifted.

You claim this Administration’s border policies are humane, but the crises caused by your policies have only added to the many tragedies caused by illegal immigration. I am concerned DHS’s Disinformation Board will only serve to silence or censor those voices critical of your disastrous policies and serve a political cover for your failure to secure the border.

Ironically, Jankowicz was against government oversight of speech  before she was for it:

Imagine that, you know, with President Trump right now calling all of these news organizations that have inconvenient for him stories that … they’re getting out there that he’s calling fake news, and now lashing out at platforms. I would never want to see our executive branch have that sort of power.

Here’s a revolutionary idea for the powerbrokers who want to run other people’s lives: How about finding a principle and then screwing it to a sticking place—like maybe your spine.

Just as leftists have defined conservative moral and ontological claims about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation “hate speech,” so they can ban it, leftists in the Department of Homeland Security will define news stories they hate “misinformation” and “disinformation,” so they can do likewise.

There is one bit of good news peeking out from behind the cloud of oppression that has issued from the penumbras formed by gaseous emanations expelled from the Biden administration. We have learned that the Biden administration has mastered the art of losing an election: Raise gas prices, raise food prices, make America oil-dependent again, make the world a more dangerous place, judge people by the color of their skin and their genitalia, open wide our Southern border, tell parents the government owns their children, and then tell Americans that a powerful, unaccountable government bureaucracy is going to decide which ideas and opinions constitute “misinformation.”

Yep, that should tap the last nail in Joe’s metaphorical coffin. Rational, liberty-loving voters of every color don’t want the government deciding what their children should be taught, which laws can be broken, or whose speech can be banned.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Biden-Administrations-Even-Harder-Fascistic-Turn.mp3

When it comes to media reporting today, the saying, “Don’t trust, verify” has never been more relevant. Quite literally, you simply cannot trust what you read or even seen without digging deeper and verifying. All the more does this seem to be the case when it comes to Donald Trump, who is on the front pages again after his interview with Piers Morgan.

As headlined in the UK’s The Sun, “GRUMPY TRUMPY. Dramatic moment Donald Trump storms off explosive Piers Morgan interview raging ‘you’re a DISLOYAL FOOL’.”

Yes, “DONALD Trump stormed out of a world exclusive interview with Piers Morgan in a blazing row over the ‘stolen’ U.S. presidential election.

“The ex-President reached boiling point after Piers blamed Trump’s refusal to admit defeat in the 2020 vote for last year’s deadly riots at the Capitol.”

If you didn’t believe the article, you could simply watch the video highlights. Trump was guilty as charged.

Only it appears that he wasn’t – at least, when it comes to him storming out of the interview in a rage. As other news outlets have reported,

“Audio provided by former President Donald Trump’s team to Breitbart News of the end of Trump’s interview with Piers Morgan proves that Morgan and his team deceptively edited the interview to make it appear as though it was a contentious ending when it was not.

“A 30-second promotional clip that Morgan released on Wednesday afternoon seemed to show Trump flying off the handle and walking out mid-interview as a righteous Morgan asked him tough questions about his views on the 2020 election. But the full story seems to indicate that Morgan’s team deceptively edited the clips together to make it as nasty as possible for Trump—and to drive up the ratings for Morgan’s new show.”

Specifically,

“Trump spent more than an hour with Morgan, and the way the promo clip cuts together what it calls ‘Morgan Versus Trump’ moments to promote the interview which will air on this coming Monday night is particularly deceptive. Most of those moments had nothing to do with the election issue at all, and the full audio of the last bit of the interview shows that Trump standing up and walking away and saying ‘turn the camera off’ came after Morgan ended the interview and thanked Trump for a “great interview.”

The audio recording of the last 7+ minutes of the interview, provided by Trump’s team, seems to confirm this scenario, reminding us again of the need to verify before trusting.

But that’s just the beginning of the apparent misreporting and deception.

The Sun claimed that, “Trump screamed that his interviewer was ‘dishonest’, ‘a FOOL’ and barked at the shocked TV crew: ‘TURN THE CAMERAS OFF!’”

And, we are told, “Piers tells how the President stared at him with ‘undisguised fury’ and was ‘almost foaming at the mouth’.”

But when you listen to the audio of the interview, you hear something very different.

Trump certainly did have some harsh words for Morgan, but they were spoken very calmly, in typical Trump demeanor. And he did not “scream” that Morgan was dishonest nor did he “bark” at the camera crew. Listen to the audio for yourself, linked in the article here.

Based on the audio tape, Morgan wanted to ask Trump one more question before they were done, wanting him to tell the story about getting a hole in one while golfing recently with former great Ernie Els.

After recounting the story, Trump and Morgan laughed together and Morgan thanked him for a great interview. Then, with everything done, Trump said to the crew, “Turn the cameras off.”

That’s it. Nothing explosive. Nothing out of control. Noting spoken in a fit of rage.

Just some laughing together about the golf story, some mutual appreciation for the interview, and a simple, “We’re done” (as in, “Turn the cameras off”).

So, in this case, what you saw (the video) and what you read (the article) was terribly misleading.

Do not trust, but verify!

It could be that Trump said some stupid things in the interview. It could be that he made himself look bad with some of his comments. And he certainly had some harsh things to say about Morgan.

But the way things were presented in major news headlines and the way the video was edited gave a very false impression.

Unfortunately, this happens every day of the week, as alleged news reporting puts a dramatic spin on things, shaping the way you will hear and see them.

How many articles have you read about “the internet exploding” after a certain event or comment, only to find out that several people on Twitter had something to say?

Or how many times have you seen headlines about an embarrassing moment for a politician, only to learn that the embarrassment was primarily in the eyes of the beholder?

A few years ago, I was asked to film an interview for a major cable TV channel about a controversial cultural issue. I agreed to come on if the interview was aired live, but they told me it would be prerecorded.

I then requested that my ministry would be allowed to video tape the entire interview for our own archives, not to air publicly (we would put this in writing) unless they deceptively edited the interview.

Not surprisingly, they declined, because of which I declined the invitation.

I had seen what happened to some of my colleagues where the deceptive editing was completely over the top. (I’m talking about showing the person smiling laughing after being asked about something like the Holocaust or slavery in America, whereas they had spliced in the laughter from a different segment.) I was not going to let that happen to me.

But it is not just this particular channel that was guilty of deceptive editing (or reporting). This misreporting is rampant today, often right in front of our eyes, without us having the slightest clue.

So remember to verify the details carefully before trusting. The deception is only going to get worse.

This article was originally published by AskDrBrown.org.

For those who have watched Fox News over the years, it is no surprise that they announced the hiring of Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner with great fanfare and hype. In the words of CEO Suzanne Scott, “Caitlyn’s story is an inspiration to us all. She is a trailblazer in the LGBTQ+ community and her illustrious career spans a variety of fields that will be a tremendous asset for our audience.”

Perhaps these words could be used as an epitaph on Fox’s legacy? Mark the day carefully.

All the talking points are in order in Scott’s short, effusive statement: Jenner’s transition from Bruce to Caitlyn is “an inspiration to us all.” This famous biological male is “she.” And LGBTQ+ activism is something to celebrate. You go, girl!

Surely this is the death knell for Fox, even if it remains large and influential for decades to come. It has lost its voice and sold its soul. And with what moral authority can Fox call on Jenner to speak against “Lia” Thomas competing against women? Is this Fox’s new message? “Transitioning is fine and sex and gender are whatever you perceive them to be. Just play fair!”

But, to repeat, this should come as no surprise to those who have watched Fox over the years. Although some of the biggest names on the station were Catholic (such as Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity), it was clear that O’Reilly’s views were hardly Bible-based.

The same with Megyn Kelly and others, whose names I mention not to demonize them but simply to say, “They are hardly basing their worldview on the Scriptures.”

As for Hannity, as much as he identifies proudly as a Christian, he had no trouble having Jenner on as a guest last year, not to criticize him but to interview him as a California gubernatorial candidate.

To quote Jenner’s words during the interview, “For me as a trans woman, I think role models are extremely important for young people.”

What? Jenner a role model for young people?

The transitioning of young people is nothing less than child abuse. (More on this in a moment.) And Hannity didn’t object?

Jenner continued, “Trans issues people struggle with, big time. Our suicide rate is nine times higher than the general public. And for me to be a role model for them, to be out there, I am running for governor of the state of California. Who would have ever thunk that? We’ve never even had a woman governor.”

So Jenner, already crowned “Woman of the Year” by Glamour, would be California’s first “woman governor.”

The cat has long been out of the bag when it comes to Fox’s core values.

In fact, without mentioning specific names here, a friend of mine who is a publicity agent told me a few years ago that, while he wanted to land me an interview on one of the biggest shows on Fox, it would be hard for him to get past some of the show’s gay producers.

In short, just because Fox was pro-Trump doesn’t mean Fox was (and is) pro-Bible (as if support for Trump equated with support for the Bible).

And just because Fox is more conservative politically and fiscally than CNN or MSNBC doesn’t mean that Fox is conservative morally or spiritually.

But again, this should not come as a surprise.

So, if you want biblically based views, go to people who base their lives on the Word of God. If you want news that is more conservative on some issues than the left-leaning networks, go to Fox (and some others). But by all means, do not confuse the two, especially at a time when trans activism threatens to undermine the very nature of male and female, not to mention threatens women’s sports and even our fundamental freedoms of speech.

Last week, I was talking with a well-known conservative media figure who told me that, above all, we must undercut the agenda of the left, and that meant working together with gays like Dave Rubin, even though my colleague personally rejected same-sex “marriage.”

In a similar spirit, a friend of mine who is an Orthodox rabbi had Jenner speak at one of his gatherings because Jenner is such a strong ally of Israel.

And what of Trump having Peter Thiel speak for him at the Republican National Convention, despite Thiel being openly and proudly gay?

The truth be told, I recently interviewed a female-to-male trans person to unite our voices in speaking out against the transitioning of children, which we both agree is child abuse.

But in our case, we began the show by making categorical statements about our differences. We laid that out clearly so there could be no doubt or question as to where we each stood. (Watch here when you can. The interview is a real eye-opener.)

This is in stark contrast with Fox’s celebratory embrace of Jenner as an iconic trailblazer in the LGBTQ+ community.

Ironically, despite Fox’s incessant (and often well-placed) criticisms of President Biden and his administration, Fox made its unfortunate announcement on the same day that the Biden administration announced its aggressive support for radical trans activism – beginning with the transitioning of children.

Mark the day.

(For my relevant 5-minute video, “What Does It Mean to Be a Conservative,” click here.)

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Written by Trevor Thomas

On Tuesday of this week, Megan Fox at PJ Media reported on Fox News’ correspondent Bill Melugin’s somewhat foolish account of child rapist James Tubbs. While Melugin gets the heinous nature of Tubbs’ crime and the terrible response to it by the Los Angeles County District Attorney correct, he plays into the lefts’ hands when it comes to their perverse gender ideology. As Mrs. Fox notes,

While reporting on a gruesome story in which child rapist James Tubbs (who calls himself “Hannah”) has been caught on tape bragging about the light sentence he got after sexually assaulting a ten-year-old in a bathroom, Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin went out of his way to call Tubbs “she” and “her” multiple times on America’s Newsroom. It’s not only wrong but confusing to the audience. Why would Fox News join the woke gender bullies who demand that everyone gets their preferred pronouns no matter what our eyes tell us or despite whatever heinous crime they’ve committed?

Mrs. Fox goes on to note that,

Strangely, Melugin did not call Tubbs “she” and “her” on Tucker Carlson’s show, seeming to know the audience wouldn’t appreciate calling the convicted child rapist “she.” So what’s the story? Is Melugin required to use the preferred pronouns of psychopaths, or is it a personal choice?

Sadly, it seems that Melguin’s ignorant use of the English language is indeed an indication of policy on America’s Newsroom. Yesterday, in order to again discuss Tubbs’ case, the day after Melguin’s appearance, America’s Newsroom co-host Bill Hemmer had on Alex Bastian, a special advisor to inept Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon. In the segment, multiple times Hemmer referred to Tubbs using the female pronouns “she” and “her.”

“We cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.”
~2 Corinthians 13:8

It’s no secret that most of the major social media companies want to suppress speech, specifically that of conservatives, but they are becoming more emboldened and blatant in their intentions. Not only do they censor truth, but they also shamefully promote their radical, sinful agenda. In a recent interview, Susan Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube, talked about how difficult it has been to moderate the platform, specifically referring to COVID-19 “misinformation.” Wojcicki talks about the obvious things that must be censored, such as illegal content, but then she states that the “misinformation” surrounding COVID-19 is much more of a gray area. She gives numerous excuses as to why they need to suppress this information, such as advertisers wanting to withdraw from the site and remembering the “role that Youtube plays in society.”

Knowing the enormous influence that a large platform such as YouTube has, Ms. Wojcicki clearly has an agenda that she wants to push. But the censorship power she wields on her own platform isn’t enough for Wojcicki; she says that she wants governments to

“have more control of online speech…to pass laws … that be very cleanly and clearly defined such that we can implement it.”

Most social media companies would act as if it is an inconvenience to have such restrictions put on them, but I think Wojcicki gives an inside look into how she and other social media platforms really feels. They wouldn’t be upset, but rather they would be ecstatic since they now have an excuse to censor all the “misinformation” they want. Wojcicki and the rest of these big tech rulers don’t care about free speech in any shape or form, although many of them claim to. All they care about is pushing their agenda on the populace, and if getting the government involved is what it takes, then so be it.

This interview with YouTube’s CEO shows a disturbing trend among the Left in general – they are becoming more flagrant in their intentions to suppress, indoctrinate, and control. We can see it taking root in schools, social media companies, and even in a lot of everyday liberals. For example, in a poll from Rasmussen Reports, 55 percent of Democrats want to “fine Americans who choose not to get the COVID-19 vaccine,” and almost half of Democrats want to “fine or imprison” people who question the vaccine. But the most disturbing statistic among these polls is that 45 percent of Democrats want to force those who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine to “temporarily live in designated facilities or locations.”

The average American used to say they valued freedom above all else, but it is becoming more and more clear that Democrat values and priorities are changing. It used to be unthinkable that any of the above restrictions or punishments would actually be considered, let alone come to pass, yet here we are with almost half of Democrats in favor of imprisoning COVID-19 dissenters. While the majority of Americans are opposed to this ludicrous idea, it is disturbing that about one quarter of the population would even consider it. In truth, Democrats don’t want a fair fight where information can be easily obtained for either argument; they just want to suppress, censor, and fight dirty against anything with which they disagree.

Government schools are another area in which liberals are becoming more blatant in their actions. At first, we were told there was no harmful indoctrination such as Critical Race Theory or LGBT propaganda in school curriculum, but they are slowly starting to admit that there is. On TikTok you can find a crazy number of deranged teachers fully admitting to being part of the LGBT movement in front of their students, often very young students. Also, you can find teachers celebrating the fact that they indoctrinate students with LGBTQIA lies. Many of these students are as young as preschoolers or kindergarteners. The former governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, has admitted that he thinks parents should have no say in government schools. He is on record as stating,

“I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

Liberals used to laugh at us and call us “conspiracy theorists” for what they are now admitting to publicly. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, people have to stop sending their kids to public schools if they are at all able to do so. Even if you think your kid is good enough or “strongly rooted” in your family’s beliefs, they are still kids, and highly susceptible to suggestion. We have to do everything we can to fight this corrupt and evil system.

With the Left becoming more shameless in promoting their extreme social agenda, we must also consider the long-term impact. As I said earlier, Wojcicki believes that she plays a large role with a significant impact on society, and as much as I hate to admit it, she’s right. YouTube is a platform used by millions of people across the world, including many of my friends and even myself. While YouTube does have its benefits, such as access to many conservative voices, it also has a very dark side, especially if you are not politically astute.

Most of the YouTube recommendations I receive are for conservative voices, as that is my most frequent search. However, sometimes I get recommendations from YouTube or through YouTube Shorts (basically this is YouTube’s version of TikTok) for weird LGBT or BLM propaganda. Some of the most atrocious and ungodly things are posted on YouTube Shorts. Anyone can post pretty much whatever liberal propaganda they want (this is not an exaggeration) and be sure that YouTube will not censure the content because it aligns with their corporate agenda.

Despite awareness of YouTube’s unscrupulous tactics, many parents allow their kids to use the site with little to no supervision whatsoever. I understand it may be hard, and perhaps too restrictive, to keep teenagers off the site, but that is a conversation for another time. At this moment, I am concerned about parents who let their three-year-old go on the site, unsupervised, to do whatever they want. In such a scenario, it is impossible to know what that child will come across as he spends hours a day scrolling through countless videos. With Susan Wojcicki as the CEO of YouTube, innumerable innocent children will be exposed to this degenerate propaganda. Hopefully soon, more and more people will acknowledge and stand against the radical Left’s bold and flagrant indoctrination strategies that are promoted as truth by YouTube and other online platforms.

The Facebook Overlords have finally released me from yet another 30-day prison sentence for expressing views “progressives” don’t like. You know who I’m talking about. “Progressives” are those freedom-loving tyrants who proclaim from their high horses how deeply they honor all voices and value diversity; how tolerant, unbiased, and respectful they are; how open-minded they are; and how much they loathe oppression and “othering” as they oppress and “other” conservatives.

“Progressives” are the moral midgets who are destroying America while self-identifying as the world’s saviors. They are transaviors. They enslave and call it liberation. They hate and call it love. They kill and call it health. They propagandize and groom, and call it education. They exclude and call it inclusion. They divide and call it unity. They produce evil and call it good.

In the 21st Century virtual public square, transaviors decide which views ought not be tolerated based on their beliefs about love, reality, and truth, while censoring the expression of all dissenting views. They shriek against shaming and bullying while ridiculing dissenters.

They destroy the hearts, minds, bodies, and families of children, and then sashay away wearing their pussy hats and glittery rainbow blinders to their splintered, hedonistic, artificially lit non-homes to self-pleasure and ingest soma, content knowing that Big Brother will finish what they started.

Transaviors include presumptuous change agents like Kelly Baraki and Lori Caldeira, two propagandists who self-identify as teachers at Buena Vista Middle School in Salinas, California. They are the predatorial “teachers” whose goal is to use their publicly funded positions of power to recruit vulnerable students into the boundary-free world of disordered sexuality. Abigail Shrier broke the story a month ago, which generated a firestorm that spread across the nation.

The deepest desire of Baraki’s and Caldeira’s dark hearts is to ideologically groom other people’s children through membership in an “LGBTQA+” school club with the intentionally obscurantist name “You Be You.” Until Shrier’s exposé, Baraki and Caldeira’s tactics included secretly monitoring students’ Google searches to identify their prey and developing ever more cunning ways to conceal children’s club membership from parents.

But Baraki and Caldeira weren’t satisfied with merely ideologically grooming other people’s children with the debatable beliefs of homosexuals, cross-sex impersonators, and collaborators (euphemistically called “allies”). They also secretly facilitated the decision of a vulnerable 12-year-old girl to identify as “transfluid.”

Baraki and Caldeira’s efforts are evil, and they have no right to be involved with children.

Sarah Rubin, editor of the Monterey Weekly, has a close-minded take on the community uproar over Baraki and Caldeira:

If this were a chess club or a gardening club, it would be a non-issue. The instructor would be reprimanded for violating school policies, but no public outcry or chain of conservative media coverage would’ve followed. They’re responding to an underlying fear that exposure to LGBTQ+ awareness is somehow changing kids. 

It might be making their kids more open-minded. But LGBTQ+ people have been here and will continue to be here. And a new generation of kids is growing up much more open-minded about gender and sexuality than my generation did. Instead of telling them to shut up, we might learn something by listening.

Here’s something on which everyone can agree: Chess and gardening clubs are non-issues. Surely, Rubin can understand why that is. Unlike homoeroticism and cross-dressing, chess and gardening do not touch on morality, epistemology, ontology, teleology, theology, or psychology.

Rubin is correct. Parents are concerned that “exposure to LGBTQ+” propaganda—not “awareness”—will change kids. Using yet more euphemistic language, Rubin admits such “awareness” is changing kids. She admits it “might be making” other people’s kids “more open-minded.” By “open-minded,” Rubin means their minds have been changed. Their minds have been “trans”-formed by transaviors.

The minds of children indoctrinated with leftist assumptions about sexuality are being closed tightly to the beliefs that homoerotic acts, cross-dressing, cross-sex hormone doping, and lopping off healthy breasts and penises are unhealthy and morally wrong acts. Relentless advocacy of leftist beliefs has closed the minds of children to the ideas that all forms of love are not the same, that marriage has an intrinsic nature that laws cannot change, and that children deserve a mother and a father—ideally their own biological mother and father.  

Just curious, is Rubin any more open-minded to conservative views of sexuality than conservatives are to leftist views?

Who is telling kids to “shut up”? What I hear is parents telling leftist change-agents—adults—in government schools to shut up. Parents and other taxpayers are telling them to stop promoting their moral claims and metaphysical theories about “gender” and “gender identity” to children. They’re telling leftist activists to stop basing policies and practices on bathroom usage and sports participation on arguable theories. They’re telling leftist activists who pretend to teach to stop usurping parental authority and undermining parents’ beliefs. They’re telling them to stop exposing minors to obscene material. And they’re telling them that sound educational content and practices should not be shaped by the disordered feelings of immature children and teens.

Rubin concludes with yet more sophistry:

My hope is that there are also voices from parents who want to advocate for inclusion. As Jacob Agamao, LGBTQ+ services coordinator for The Epicenter in Salinas puts it: “We hear it all the time: ‘Won’t somebody think of the children?’ But please, won’t somebody think of the children?”

What precisely does Rubin mean by “inclusion”? She means that leftist views of sexuality must be systemically embraced, affirmed, and implemented in curricula, policies, and practices, which necessarily excludes any child who rejects them.

It may surprise Rubin to know that many conservatives think about children unceasingly. They think about the children whose minds are being malformed, innocence stolen, hearts broken, and bodies poisoned.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-Open-Mindedness-of-Leftist-Propagandists.mp3

Chicago Sun-Times education reporter Nader Issa offers a classic example of biased opinion writing masquerading as objective reporting in his “news” narratives about a recent controversy in the Chicago suburb of Downers Grove over an obscene “graphic memoir.” The memoir, titled Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe, may sound familiar to IFI readers. I wrote this about her memoir in early August 2021:

Maia Kobabe, author of Gender Queer: A Memoir, which is carried in high school libraries, tells the peculiar tale of her journey to her “identity” as a genderqueer, asexual woman with a lesbian aunt and a sister who dates a woman who pretends to be a man.

The far-left American Library Association awarded Kobabe an Alex Award for her “graphic” memoir. Her memoir is graphic in both senses of the word. It’s a sexually explicit, 240-page comic book about her journey into sexual confusion and perversion. Kobabe, who uses the “Spivak” pronouns ey/eir/em, also teaches art workshops to middle school children, mostly, she says, “AFAB” girls, which means “assigned female at birth.” Kobabe evidently doesn’t know that children aren’t assigned either a sex or “gender identity” at birth. That’s not a thing obstetricians do. Obstetricians identify the objective sex of babies at birth, a characteristic that never changes.

Public school kerfuffles over Kobabe’s obscene memoir have been justifiably emerging as parents learn that their children’s schools carry it, and one of those kerfuffles took place at a Downers Grove School Board meeting on November 15.

Issa mischaracterizes community criticism of the book as an “attack on literature” about “gender.” What in Issa’s view distinguishes an attack from criticism? And does he think that books about “gender” that don’t include obscene language and images would be under similar “attack”?

Issa continues his sly editorializing. He says the “attack” was perpetrated by “conservative protesters” and “some parents.” Notice the adjective “some,” which suggests that the attack was perpetrated mainly by conservative protestors with just a few parents. Issa, however, doesn’t provide any details. How many of the “conservative protesters” were district taxpayers? How many of the attendees approve of Gender Queer? How many of the attendees who approve of Gender Queer were parents? How many of the attendees who approve of Gender Queer were district taxpayers as opposed to outside leftist agitators? And why does Issa identify opponents of Gender Queer as “conservative” five times in the two articles he has written but doesn’t refer to supporters of the obscene book as “progressive” even once?

Issa then said that “Some critics have claimed children were being exposed to ‘homoerotic’ or ‘pornographic’ language and images.” Issa could have written “some critics oppose children being exposed to homoerotic and pornographic language and images,” but instead he wrote “some critics have claimed children were being exposed to” such language and images. Some have “claimed”? Seriously? Can any honest person deny that Kobabe’s comic book includes homoerotic and pornographic language and images? If images of two women engaged in sex using a dildo is not homoerotic and pornographic, what is?

The paranoid Issa implies critics are part of a vast right-wing conspiracy of “conservative politicians, activists, commentators and small networks of parents” to “denounce and ban progressive teachings in school.” He’s unfortunately right on two things; “progressives” are the peddlers of deviant and graphic sexuality, and they are using public schools to disseminate their sexuality ideology.

If Issa is bothered by the shared goals of conservative politicians, activists, commentators, and small networks of parents who are working toward cleansing schools of controversial leftist materials, he must really be troubled by the shared goals of leftist politicians, activists, academicians, commentators, and large networks of parents to systemically entrench leftist ideas about sexuality (and race) in curricula, resources, professional development, and activities.

Just as Issa referred to “some” parents and said some critics have “claimed” in order to discount the views of critics of Gender Queer, he also referred to “small” networks of parents. Perhaps Issa isn’t aware of the intimidation, bullying, mockery, name-calling, and shaming conservative taxpayers experience when they criticize pro-“LGBTQ” resources used in schools to advance leftist assumptions.

And perhaps Issa didn’t realize that “small networks” of conservative parents are now the minority, and minority voices are all the rage. Maybe Issa is an ideological neanderthal who believes might and numbers make right.

Issa dismisses the offensiveness of Gender Queer by saying it’s only “A few pages that include illustrations of sexual acts” that “have drawn the bulk of the ire.” First, it’s not just obscene drawings about which critics are angry. It’s also obscene language.

Second, how many pages of obscene images would it take to render a novel, memoir, or comic book inappropriate for purchase with taxpayer dollars for minors?

Issa calls attention to the “other students, parents and community members” who see the book as a “vital tool for youth discovering their identity and any efforts to ban it as censorship.”

Please note that Issa did not say a “few other students, parents, and community members” or “some other students, parents and community members” think Gender Queer is a “vital tool.” The diminishing qualifiers “some” and “few” are reserved for conservatives.

Vital? Really? Gender Queer is necessary to the continuation of life? However did kids survive before Kobabe wrote her obscene comic book?

The accusations of censorship and book-banning are curious. When leftist teachers decide that a book’s content is offensive or age-inappropriate and choose not to teach it, it’s called “text-selection.” When conservatives decide that a book is content- or age-inappropriate, leftists call it censorship or book-banning.

I wonder how many books the Downers Grove high schools have that critique leftist gender theory? How many resources do they have about detransitioners? If the answer is none, why would that be?

Issa didn’t mention whether there are any leftist politicians, activists, commentators, and networks of parents who share the goal of keeping Gender Queer and other obscene novels and plays in school libraries.

Issa mentioned that three students spoke in favor of keeping Gender Queer in the library. One student defended it by saying, that “it’s not being forced upon” students. Well, I guess Downers Grove parents should be thankful that teachers aren’t forcing their children to read it, but that comment fails to address the issue. The issue is, should taxpayer subsidized schools purchase and make available to minor students obscene material. Any parents who want their child to read Gender Queer can buy it for them, or kids can buy it themselves.

An 18-year-old student shared that Gender Queer “has scenes in it that are mature and sexual … [but] it’s not like we haven’t been given books with sex in them before.” Ain’t that the truth. School libraries and curricula are chock full of Young Adult (YA) books with graphic sex. Gender Queer is not an isolated library purchase. I would, however, dispute the claim that the obscene scenes in Gender Queer are “mature.” In this context, “mature” is a euphemism for vulgar and obscene.

The 18-year-old, Josiah Poynter, continued: “Inclusion matters to young people. … This is why we must have this book in our school’s library. Inclusion brings an opportunity to grow in a safe environment.”

Poynter is right. Teens and virtually every other human want to feel included, but inclusion must not trump truth. Inclusion must not entail affirming all feelings, beliefs, and acts. Neither inclusion nor the provision of a safe environment should entail the eradication of all moral boundaries.

According to Issa, Superintendent Hank Thiele said Gender Queer “met the district’s requirements for inclusion in its library.” Yikes. Someone better take a close critical look at those requirements.

In Issa’s second article on the Downers Grove dust-up, Democrat U.S. Representative Sean Casten made this asinine comment:

Let’s be really blunt about this. If you are a grown adult and you are walking through a library in an elementary school or high school and having sexual thoughts, you are the problem. It ain’t the book.

Let’s be really blunt about Casten. If he thinks adults who oppose taxpayer-funded schools spending taxpayer funds to make obscene garbage like Gender Queer available to minors are “having sexual thoughts,” then he’s ignorant, creepy, and unfit for office. But this is what we should expect from a man who admires Dan Savage.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Downers-Grove-HS-Obscene-Books-Biased-Journalism.mp3

In his November 1 op-ed for The Hill, Fox News Analyst Juan Williams claimed that the “parents’ rights’ mantra in the Virginia gubernatorial elections is simply “a code for white race politics.” To the contrary, this really is about parents’ rights and about what is best for all children. To inject charges of white supremacy and racism is to miss the whole point of why so many parents are so upset. In all candor and with due respect, I would have expected better from Mr. Williams.

The fact is that these parents are concerned with the injection of racism into every phase of their children’s education, not to mention the injection of an extreme LGBTQ agenda. Williams should be standing with these parents, not against them. With reference to campaigning strategies in the 2018 elections, he wrote,

“Virginia Republicans are back with a new and improved ‘Culture Wars’ campaign for 2021. The closing argument is once again full of racial division — but this time it is dressed up as a defense of little children.”

Specifically, he claimed that,

“It is a campaign to stop classroom discussion of Black Lives Matter protests or slavery because it could upset some children, especially white children who might feel guilt.”

To the contrary, every white Christian parent with whom I have interacted wants their children to know the truth about slavery, segregation, and the lasting effects of those sinful institutions. And they want to see equal opportunities for all.

But they do not want their children thinking they are evil because they are white (this is actually happening). And they do not want their children to feel guilty for having a nice home or good educational opportunities, as if all success of all white Americans was built on the shoulders of slaves. In the words of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,

“The way we’re talking about race is that it either seems so big that somehow white people now have to feel guilty for everything that happened in the past.”

Most of all, these parents do not want everything to be about race, to the point that math can be seen as racist. Or that famous European poets and historians are cancelled because of their whiteness.

Remarkably, to make his case, Williams repeats the “very fine people” lie, writing, “Recall, it was Trump who famously said there were ‘very fine people’ on both sides of the violence sparked by ‘Unite the Right,’ the 2017 rally of white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va.”

Surely Williams must know that this has been debunked time and time again. But why let a good lie die? He also claims that,

“Critical race theory — broadly, a focus on racial disparities as a fact of American life — is not explicitly taught in Virginia’s public schools or anywhere in American public schools. But Republicans nationwide have made it a boogeyman to excite racial divisions and get their base to the polls.”

To be sure, there are different ways to define CRT. For some, it is healthy, positive, and objective. For others, it is unhealthy, negative, and biased. So, before we debate CRT, it’s important to ask, “What, exactly, do you mean by the term?”

And clearly, CRT in its full-blown, academic form, is not being taught to kids in Virginia (and elsewhere). But are classes taught through the lens of CRT? Without question.

As a Daily Wire headline announced on October 31, “Terry McAuliffe Claims CRT Has ‘Never Been’ In Virginia Schools. His Administration Pushed It, Documents Show.” The documentation is clear and undeniable.

Yet Williams approvingly cites McAuliffe, who said, “[Gubernatorial candidate Glenn] Youngkin’s closing message of book banning and silencing esteemed Black authors is a racist dog whistle designed to gin up support from the most extreme elements of his party — mainly his top endorser and surrogate, Donald Trump.”

To the contrary, it is authors with extremist views that are under scrutiny, or, at the least, authors whose views are being exploited by educators with extremist agendas, while contrary views are rejected and banned. (As an aside, but for the record, Youngkin largely campaigned as himself and for himself, not as an extension of Trump, as other political commentators have noted.)

To be clear, I would not deny that white racism remains an issue for some (perhaps many?) families in Virginia. Nor would I deny that some of them would prefer that the full truth about slavery and its legacy not be taught in schools. May they have a change of heart, may they face the facts, and may they enlighten their children. There is no place for white supremacy anywhere and at any time.

Unfortunately, Williams is guilty of a reverse racism, one that projects all kind of nefarious motives on to parents who really do care and who really want their kids to get a solid education rather than cultural brainwashing. In that spirit, I recently tweeted,

“The solution to anti-black racism is not anti-white racism (or anti-Asian racism, etc.). Instead, it is cultivating mutual understanding, respect, and love, with a real desire to see others thrive and enjoy the best of what America has to offer.”

Mr. Williams, I invite you to step higher with me so that, together, we could advance that mutual understanding, respect, and love – based on truth – rather than engage in an endless game of biased and racially charged sniping.

Surely America in 2021 deserves better.

This article was originally posted at AskDrBrown.org.

I was hoping not to wade into the gutter with the critics of Douglas Wilson, who in IFI’s view is one of the most important truth-tellers on the corrupt American scene. But the calumny hurled at Wilson is so manifestly unjust that we cannot remain on the curb any longer.

For those who don’t know Douglas Wilson, he is a faithful, wise Christian, a theologian, and pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho with the increasingly rare gift for foreseeing where intellectual trends are leading both the church and the culture and for fearlessly warning against these trends. He is a brilliant writer with a gift for incisive metaphor and biting satire, which he has employed to critique, among other things, toxic feminism, toxic un-masculinity, unbiblical egalitarianism, the failure of churches to apply biblical church discipline, and “pomosexuality” (i.e., post-modern sexuality, including “trans”-cultism).

Wilson is semi-regularly attacked in an unholy effort to destroy him by false allegations, innuendo, lies of omission, and idiotic out-of-context memes. All of these tactics are aided and abetted by the poor reading skills of Americans, a stubborn refusal to do the hard work of closely and objectively examining sensationalistic allegations, and a faux-Victorian sensibility that sends some to the fainting couch following an encounter with toasty rhetoric (as opposed to church lady-approved milquetoasty rhetoric).

The most recent attack comes by way of that purveyor of wisdom and virtue: Vice Magazine—or as Wilson aptly calls it Vile Magazine. In an article titled, “Inside the Church That Preaches ‘Women Need to Be Led by a Firm Hand,’” feminist and opponent of theological orthodoxy, Sarah Stankorb, admits to interviewing only “12 former and current church members and Logos students.” Logos schools is the K-12 school founded by Christ Church.

For some perspective, Christ Church currently has 900 members. Logos school has 562 current students and 583 alumni. And the college affiliated with Christ Church, New Saint Andrews, currently has 196 undergraduate students and 40 graduate students, and has issued over 500 Bachelor of Arts degrees. Anyone could find a dozen disgruntled complainants from among well over 2,000 to gripe about any institution, pastor, or teacher.

Stankorb refers to the “communal ecosystem” in Moscow, Idaho composed of “the K-12 Logos School; a publishing house, Canon Press; an unaccredited pastoral ministry program, Greyfriars Hall; and a private college, New Saint Andrews.” Take note of the adjective/pejorative “unaccredited,” intended to tacitly discredit the pastoral ministry program. Leftists are all googly-eyed about “accreditation.”

I guess this makes Moscow, Idaho similar to the communal ecosystem found in the Hyde Park neighborhood in Chicago where Stankorb would find the pre-K-12 University of Chicago Lab Schools; a publishing house, the University of Chicago Press; the accredited University of Chicago Divinity School; and a private university, the University of Chicago.

Maybe, just maybe, Christians want the freedom and ability to do some of the things leftists, who control public K-12 schools, most colleges and universities, and publishing companies, enjoy.

Stankorb tells the story of a woman called “Jean” who details her abusive marriage, implicating unnamed leaders of Trinity Reformed—a Christ Church plant—as facilitators of her abuse, none of whom were Doug Wilson.

“Jean,” whose real name is not used, alleges that since she divorced her husband and left Christ Church, her car has been vandalized multiple times and she’s been called “whore, b*tch, and c*nt,” online. None of the miscreants have been named. And neither Stankorb nor “Jean” provided any evidence that Doug Wilson or Christ Church leaders or parishioners were involved in any of these offensive acts.

The pseudonymous “Jean” also told Stankorb that an unnamed man in Christ Church “told her a man is allowed to rape his wife.” Again, not Wilson, and the article did not say that “Jean” shared this comment with Wilson who has made it clear that he abhors marital rape as does every other decent man.

Stankorb brings up two of Wilson-haters’ favorite stories, and she does what all Wilson-haters do: She gives astonishingly short shrift to very complicated stories several of whose central characters have lied (not Wilson) and subsequently admitted to lying (not Wilson). Stankorb likely assumed that very few readers would take the time necessary to research the stories in depth.

The Bible commands Christians to “judge with righteous judgment,” so here is a link to information provided by Wilson on these two controversies for those interested in seeing evidence before forming judgments.

And here’s a link to information provided by Wilson on other controversies ginned up by secular leftists and Christians who hate complementarianism and piquant rhetoric.

I must acknowledge that Stankorb is a skillful writer, and by “skillful,” I mean cunning. She writes in such a way as to be able to claim she was truthful, while tainting Wilson’s character through innuendo and critical omissions.

Stankorb, whose previous articles expose her personal animus toward theological orthodoxy, goes on to criticize Wilson indirectly by criticizing his father, the liberal townies’ feelings about Christ Church’s land purchases, Christ Church’s disciplinary policies and theological positions, and Logos School’s dress code and biblical beliefs on the nature and roles of men and women.

Another of the Wilson critics cited by Stankorb is Sarah Bader who identifies herself as a “cult fighting” “atheist” and “humanist.” As evidence of just how dishonest Bader is, she posted this quote on her Twitter feed implying it was about Wilson:

Let me be clear, strange grown men cannot go around bending near-pubescent girls over desks to spank them then be surprised when somebody brings up the obvious sexual element.

That quote was not written by Bader, and it was not about Wilson. It was written by another woman Stankorb cited, Kamilla Niska, on her Facebook page on September 29, 2021 at 8:12 a.m. And it wasn’t written about Wilson but about a former Logos teacher and current superintendent Matthew Whitling, whom Niska alleges spanked her to get his sexual jollies.

Those who aren’t members of the “Believe All Women,” club would need more than this allegation to condemn Whitling. Moreover, there is no allegation from Niska that Wilson had any knowledge of the alleged spankings.

One of Wilson’s essays that popped the eyes and twisted the knickers of some Christians was a rip-snorting critique of the morally repellent, heretical Lutheran “pastor” Nadia Bolz-Weber, the tatted up supporter of “ethically sourced” porn and  other forms of sexual deviance about whom I have written.

Three years ago, in a condescending effort to mock sexual purity by mocking “purity rings,” Bolz-Weber asked her disciples to send their rings to her, after which she melted them and had them sculpted into a statuette of a vagina, which she ceremoniously presented to feminist icon Gloria Steinem.

In analyzing this act, Wilson used the word that best describes the shockingly evil, obscene rebellion against God’s creation and moral order to which Christians have become desensitized:

Bolz-Weber most certainly does understand symbolism, and she also understands—just as well—the utter inability of conservative critics to read or understand what she is saying by that symbolism. Here we have two feminist women, created by God to be the image and glory of man, and in high rebellion against that glory one of them makes a symbolic idol out of purity rings, in order to celebrate impurity. …

So let me tell you what this symbolism really means. This is what they are saying. They are shamelessly declaring to the world that they are just a couple of c*nts.

Wilson was decidedly not calling any women “c*nts.” He was saying that’s what Bolz-Weber and Gloria Steinem are, in effect, calling themselves by their actions. To bowdlerize their work by prettifying the description would be to allow Christians to continue in their blithe indifference and inadequate responses to the gangrenous rot that now engulfs America’s children.

Some Wilson critics argue that using the “c” word in any context constitutes a violation of the biblical command that Christians are to be “above reproach.” But on what basis are they claiming his use of the “c” word in this context is a reproachable sin? Because they don’t like his use of it in this context or in any context?

I suspect some of these critics would find it a reproachable sin if Wilson called women fat or lazy cows as the prophet Amos does. I suspect some of these critics would find it a reproachable sin if Wilson were to talk about the unfaithful as whores who lust after lovers with genitals like donkeys whose “emissions” are like those of stallions as Ezekiel does. I suspect some of these critics would object to Wilson comparing—in contemporary language—the unfaithful to women who melt down gold and silver to sculpt into a male object with which to have sex as Ezekiel does.

Some of Wilson’s critics cherry-pick Scripture to condemn Wilson but ignore the part about exposing the unfruitful works of darkness. Do they agree with C.S. Lewis that Christians “must be trained to feel … disgust and hatred at those things which really are … disgusting and hateful”? (emphasis added)

Are those pastors who refuse to boldly condemn homoerotic acts and relationships, same-sex “marriage,” fornication, and cross-dressing guilty of reproachable sin? Are those pastors who refuse to boldly condemn public schools that introduce homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation to children guilty of reproachable sin? Are those pastors who say and do nothing while children in their congregations are “educated” in institutions that teach them that evil is good guilty of reproachable sin? Are pastors who use incorrect or socially constructed pronouns that embody lies guilty of reproachable sin?

A lesser but likely problem attendant to all this judgy-judging is that once Christians make repeated public indictments of a fellow Christian, pride can begin to creep in, providing an incentive to maintain their position even in the face of countervailing evidence. In fact, pride incentivizes tightly squeezing closed their eyes, plugging their ears, and stopping up the access and passage to remorse.

As the saying goes, this isn’t Wilson’s first rousing rodeo. He has been attacked before by both the evangelical right (of which I am a part) and the secular left. Some of the rage against him is now spilling over onto Illinois Family Institute. We are accused of inviting him to speak and promoting his work.

“Guilty” as charged.

We have invited him to speak, and we promote his work because we believe he is one of the truly good guys in the cultural war between light and dark. And we have examined the allegations against him and found them false.

We have looked at the biblical consonance of his words, the soundness of his prognostications, the wisdom of his advice, and both sides of the allegations against him and believe he is more than worthy of support.

We at IFI are accustomed to attacks, generated ultimately by the father of lies whose goal is to marginalize and destroy truth-tellers. Satan delights in destroying the ability of Christians to expose the unfruitful works of darkness and preach the whole gospel, including the culturally inconvenient bits.

While some Christians may not like Wilson’s writing style, many others do. Both the content and style inspire and embolden them. What those who detest his style believe is not merely that Wilson should not write the way he does but that no Christian should. I’ve been told that no Christian should ever use “sarcasm” or “call names”–not even when discussing evil and those who promote it. Those Christians probably hate Juvenal and Jonathan Swift too.

For your edification and enjoyment, here are some YouTube videos of Pastor Doug Wilson at IFI events:

Should Christians Send Their Children to Public School?

Should Christians Use Transgender Pronouns?

What is a Christian Worldview?

How is Transgenderism Unbiblical?

‘Trans’ Identification & Creational Norms

Pastor Doug Wilson – Sanity as Insurrection

An Interview with Pastor Doug Wilson (2015)

Pastor Doug Wilson’s Keynote Remarks at the 2015 IFI Annual Banquet

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/The-Smearing-of-Doug-Wilson.mp3

Reports on the internet and social media of infertility problems and changes in women’s menstruation abound. Popstar Nicki Minaj has recently stated her hesitancy with the vaccine due to an anecdotal story about a friend of her cousin who suffered impotency following the vaccine. Leftists who usually celebrate Minaj’s debauchery now view her as a social pariah as she questions the vaccine’s safety. However, her acquaintance is not the only individual reporting reproductive issues, making her questions valid.

Reports from women experiencing menstruation changes following receiving the vaccine are growing. In the United Kingdom, there have now been over 30,000 women reporting changes to their menstrual cycles. These changes include extreme bleeding, pain, and skipping cycles. As reports spread through the U.K. and the U.S., some young women are concerned that the vaccines could affect their reproductive ability.

Despite these reasonable concerns, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and their mainstream media sycophants have dismissed any possibility of reproductive or menstruation problems occurring following the vaccines. However, as the CDC publicly dismisses claims, the National Institute of Health (NIH) awarded $1.67 million to five institutions to research links between the coronavirus vaccines and changes in women’s menstruation. The NIH announced on August 30th that researchers with Michigan State University, Boston University, Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins University, and Oregon Health and Science University, in coordination with NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health, would research reported menstruation problems in vaccinated women.

Reports of vaccine side effects are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a reporting site co-managed by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, numerous problems exist within the system. Healthcare providers are only required to report side effects if they are listed by the manufacturer or appear on the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccinations.

Unfortunately, there is no list on the Table that refers directly to any of the COVID vaccinations. Nor are menstruation or reproductive issues recognized as a side effect by manufacturers.

There is a list for “New Vaccines,” which specifies required adverse reactions to report. Those reactions include: shoulder injuries following the vaccine, vasovagal syncope (fainting) within seven days of inoculation, any acute complication including death, or any side effect listed in the manufacturer’s insert information. There is no indication that healthcare workers are required to report possible links to changes in menstruation or reproductive health.

The CDC claims that “VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem,” asserting that a determination of that sort is not the purpose of the site. Rather, they claim their main objective is to “assess the safety of newly licensed vaccines.”

How can the CDC claim a vaccine is not causing women’s reproductive issues if VAERS cannot determine health problems? If they cannot determine if a vaccine has caused a health issue, how can they assess the safety of vaccines? Women should demand answers to these serious questions.

Another issue with VAERS is that many physicians say it is a complex reporting process that is time-consuming. Doctors have objected to filling out the report in the past, and even the CDC has recognized its limitations. In the CDC’s Manual for the Surveillance of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases, the authors state that:

“A survey was conducted in 2005 to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices among healthcare providers about reporting to VAERS. Data indicated that although 71% of respondents were familiar with VAERS, only 17% said they were very familiar with it. Approximately 37% of healthcare providers had identified at least one adverse event after immunization, but only 17% stated that they had ever reported to VAERS.”  

Drastic underreporting limits our knowledge of the type of side effects the COVID vaccine is causing. Taking these factors into consideration, it is highly likely that few doctors actually report the impact of the vaccine on menstruation and reproduction.

Although the NIH is investigating the possibility of problems with women’s menstruation following the vaccine, other medical agencies are charging ahead with vaccine approval. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is urging FDA approval of vaccines for children under the age of 12. Not only are they recommending approval, but Pfizer has now claimed that the vaccines are safe for ages 5-11 when reduced to one-third the standard adult dosage. If adults are potentially experiencing reproductive and menstruation issues due to the vaccine, the question remains: how will it affect children’s reproductive development?

This ramrod, rushed dispersion of the COVID vaccines without resources to report adverse effects is complete lunacy. Reported side effects are essentially ignored. When confirmed, manufacturers quietly add side effects to the manufactures’ list without any public notification. Pfizer recently added myocarditis risks to their growing list of side effects. Will manufacturers do the same if it is determined that menstruation and reproductive problems are linked to their product? If given to young children, could side effects lead to sterility in these children? There are more questions than answers currently, and the federal government prefers avoiding any scrutiny.

However, it may be possible that the CDC, FDA, NIH, and vaccine manufacturers will have to answer questions. Project Veritas recently released a video from Jodi O’Malley, a registered nurse employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Arizona. O’Malley recorded herself speaking with fellow employees, including an emergency room doctor, who felt the federal government was not adequately tracking side effects from the COVID vaccines. The medical staff lamented that they had seen numerous people suffering from side effects. O’Malley forwarded the video to Project Veritas and has become a whistleblower to report on the federal government’s failures related to the vaccines’ adverse reactions. The failure of the government to report on side effects may mean vaccine related-problems with reproductive health and menstruation could be widespread. Perhaps if more whistleblowers come forward, the public will finally be made aware of existing adverse reactions.

If you are concerned about the lack of data collected and the lack of informed consent regarding the side effects of the COVID vaccine, please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him/her to force the CDC and the FDA to collect and publicly report all side effects of vaccines. If you feel you have suffered any type of side effect from the COVID vaccine, you can report the issue to the CDC HERE.