Nothing opens your mind to new worlds and new possibilities better than a book. Stories can communicate ideas, themes, and lessons considerably better than a lecture does. Children love to act out the stories of their favorite characters, adopting their mannerisms and wishing to be them. You probably can think of a book that has impacted you deeply and maybe even encouraged you to change your behavior in some manner.

Stories are incredibly powerful, sometimes bringing about great change in a culture.

Throughout history, various groups and organizations have banned books for a myriad of reasons: they were deemed inappropriate or immoral, the ideas proliferated were considered dangerous or heretical, or a tyrant thought they would stir up unrest and opposition to his rule.

Book banning is not a good thing. Because of the innate sinfulness of humanity, banning one book opens the door for unjust people or groups to ban anything they choose.

Lately, so-called book banning has been forefront in the news; a story complicated by the narrative the media is spinning. In 2020, when everything shut down due to Covid, public schooling moved to Zoom, and parents could see what their children were being taught and the material they were assigned, including the books their kids were reading.

At some point during all of this, it was discovered that there are books in elementary through high school libraries that are highly pornographic. This is not an exaggeration. If you don’t believe me, watch this video posted by a concerned mother  (WARNING: graphic content).

Understandably, parents began forming groups to advocate for having more of a say in what their children are learning in public schools and began rightly contesting books such as Gender Queer, All Boys aren’t Blue, and Lawn Boy, reading them out loud at school board meetings, requesting that schools remove them from their libraries, and asking that they provide age-appropriate reading material only.

Now the media is attacking parents and parental rights groups like Moms for Liberty. The story is being framed to make it look like these parents are trying to ban books because they are bigots who don’t want their children exposed to “diverse” ideas. They’re comparing concerned parents to Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984 (which is ironic, since in 1984 it was Big Brother that was providing people with porn).

Without coming right out and saying it, they’re purporting that schools should have these books in their libraries precisely because parents don’t want their kids to read them. The idea seems to be, “What if those poor kids feel uncomfortable with who they are and need a place to express themselves and learn about every aspect of the LGBTQIA agenda without the involvement of their mean, strict parents?”

Not only is this a twisted spin on the facts, but it is a downright lie. Banning a book means that the book is banned. It’s illegal to buy, sell, read, or own, and anyone caught with it would face punishment. That isn’t what these parents are requesting. Asking that a book be removed from a school library because of inappropriate content doesn’t vilify the parent.

Similarly, we wouldn’t blame a parent for taking a phone away from their child who is doing things he or she isn’t supposed to with it. Children aren’t allowed to go to tattoo parlors or tanning salons, and we rate movies based on the content because there are things children (and people in general) should not see.

Requesting only age-appropriate content in public schools doesn’t constitute a ban.

Much of the reasoning behind the media’s spin of the story is because most, if not all, of the contested books are LGBTQIA+ related. Our culture is obsessed with self– personal autonomy, total unrestricted freedom, and the pursuit of making oneself happy. It’s a worldview that says, “Anything goes, but if you get in the way of my anything, you need to go.”

But freedom in this world isn’t unlimited. Free societies still have laws and legal consequences for breaking them because people do bad things. If those things were allowed to continue without repercussions, society would collapse. Insisting on having the freedom to gratify the desires of the flesh ends up in slavery to death and eternal destruction.

The backbone of true freedom is Biblical morality.

Some things absolutely should be illegal. In reality, the LGBTQIA+ movement has to do with a grotesque focus on sex. It’s openly targeting children, who, be they seven or seventeen, ought to be guarded against, not exposed to pornography. Adults shouldn’t be filling their minds with it either.

Stories have the power to change minds, for good or for evil. Requesting that a school provide only age-appropriate material is a good thing, and very different from book banning.

The problem of child sexual abuse in the United States is far greater than most people realize. Sixty million American adults are sexual abuse survivors. Twenty percent of us. Thirty-nine million of the victims were abused before turning twelve years old. Because most of them will never tell anyone about their experiences, the scope of the problem remains largely a hidden evil.

One in four girls and one in six boys are sexually abused before reaching eighteen.

Why is so little being done to stop it?

During the 70’s and early 80’s I worked for the Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission, eventually becoming the Chief Investigator. More commonly known as the Illinois Crime Investigating Commission, the agency was created to attack organized crime and official misconduct. Because of that focus, we were directed to investigate the rising instances of child pornography and child prostitution that we were seeing throughout the country.

It was well known that vice activities were dominated by organized crime. So it stood to reason that the outfit was responsible for sexually exploiting growing numbers of children as well. That theory proved to be untrue.

Ninety percent of abuse victims are abused by someone they know. Sixty percent are abused by a family member. Almost twelve percent of students who graduate from high school are victims of educator sexual misconduct sometime between kindergarten and twelfth grade. The mob was not behind it.

The sexual exploitation of children turned out to be something beyond what anybody thought.

Our investigation uncovered a range of horrors none of our investigators ever expected and it led to an almost eight-year investigation into every aspect of the issue—the victims, the families, the perpetrators, the social service agencies, the health workers, the police and detectives, the prosecutors, the entire judicial system. It was all a mess. Nothing worked smoothly. There was little or no cooperation or coordination between and among agencies. Every facet of the system was riddled with incompetence and indifference.

There is no easy solution.

We contacted every police department in the state and interviewed scores of detectives about sex abuse cases they handled. What became very clear immediately was most detectives did not like being assigned these cases. A downstate detective told me one time he heard over the radio the call come in about a child being sexually abused. Immediately, he said, he hid under his desk until the supervisor assigned it to someone else.

The cases were depressing, even more so than homicides. And because the conviction rates were so poor and because they sometimes involved prominent people in the community, they were seen as career killers. Today, these cases generally are handled by specialists. But there are not enough of them.

As a way to improve the overall system, we drafted the initial enabling legislation for what has now become known as the Child Advocacy Centers. There were none back then. Today there are over 800 around the country and, for a time, they were performing a coordinating function that was very effective. Based on indicators I’ve seen recently, I am not sure that is true anymore. In Illinois they seemed to have lost touch with the original intended purpose. I have seen a similar erosion of purpose in other states as well.

During the 70’s, prosecutors were reluctant to take on cases involving child sexual abuse because convictions were hard to get. That remains the situation today. Prosecutors often take plea deals that don’t involve the perpetrator admitting to a sex offense. Or, they agree to a less serious offense that has less jail time.

Social workers for DCFS and contract agencies remain ill equipped to handle any serious cases as they remain hamstrung by rules that prevent adequate triaging of the caseload. Often, then and now, they will spend more time on easy cases where parents and caretakers are cooperative, than they will on much more serious cases where the parents actively resist and evade the caseworkers.

You would think that at least the health care workers would be universally committed to the protection of children. Not always. They generally are pretty good at reporting suspected cases of abuse, at least physical abuse. But underage girls who are pregnant sometimes are not reported as victims of abuse, despite the prima facia evidence that the child was sexually abused. Children legally cannot give consent.

In some cases, health workers help arrange, or provide, abortions without notifying the police, DCFS or any other official.

This is also sometimes true when there is evidence boys have been sexually abused, and the boys refuse to cooperate.

No report.

When a case overcomes all the hurdles, and the prosecutor secures a conviction, there is no guarantee justice will be served. Too often, judges minimize the sentencing.

Recently, a teacher in Michigan engaged in sexual intercourse repeatedly over several months with her 13-year-old student. She was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree and third-degree criminal sexual conduct, for which she could have received life imprisonment. She was sentenced to 3 to 20 years. Period. She probably will be out much earlier. She’s not the only one. It’s the same as it was 50 years ago.

In the 70’s, one of our first cases involved a man who was sexually abusing a girl for three years, starting when she was 6. We got him cold on child pornography charges and he gave a full confession. He was sentenced to five years.

Pathetic.

Those immersed in the system know all this is true, but for one reason or another are not inclined to do anything about it. Those outside the system are largely oblivious, and very often want to remain ignorant.

This leaves our next generation condemned to evade the predators as best they can largely on their own. The consequences? More and more children will become victims of child sexual abuse. In thirty years maybe there will be 90 million adult survivors. By then, twenty five percent of us?

Unless we step up and start doing something much more effective, the numbers are going to keep growing.

(Next time, some things that are working and what you can do.)

If you’ve never heard of Jimmy Donaldson, more commonly known by the moniker Mr. Beast, ask your child who he is. He (or she) likely knows. Mr. Beast is a highly popular YouTuber with multiple channels dedicated to various things, such as friendly competitions, gaming, and philanthropy. He has 146 million subscribers on his main YouTube channel and anywhere between 12.8 million to 32 million on each of his spin-off channels.

Mr. Beast’s videos, which are designed to look like a group of friends hanging out and filming as they go along, generally revolve around giving away large sums of money. For example, a few of his videos are titled, “Survive 100 Days In Circle, Win 500,000,” “I Built Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory!” or “Last To Take Hand Off Jet, Keeps It!”

Mr. Beast is incredibly popular among youth, especially teenage boys. His videos have over 100 million views each.

The first time many adults heard of Mr. Beast was a couple of months ago when he received a lot of flak (mainly from the Left) for a video detailing how he paid for cataract surgery for 1,000 blind people. Now Mr. Beast is in the news again, but unfortunately, it’s for something a lot less philanthropic.

Chris Tyson is a member of Mr. Beast’s cast of friends. Over the past couple of months, viewers noticed that Tyson has started to look and act differently in videos. The reason why became clear when Tyson revealed on Twitter that he has been going through hormone treatments to try and ‘transition’ into a girl. What makes this even sadder is that Tyson has a wife and son, who now must deal with the inevitable fallout of Tyson’s decision.

Tyson’s transition can be directly linked to an apparent addiction to pedophilic anime pornography, illustrating just how powerful influences can be. Tyson went from a typical, regular man, to a confused-looking guy in girl’s clothing.

Parents will want to know that Mr. Beast has given his full support to Chris Tyson in the form of a tweet that uses foul language:

Unless something changes, Mr. Beast’s channel is now a wolf in sheep’s clothing; another place for the LGBTQ+ agenda to be normalized and funneled into your kids. The things you watch and read and listen to really do influence you. The catalyst for Chris Tyson’s change was the porn he is reportedly addicted to and watching.

This should serve as a warning for each of us individually, and especially for parents when it comes to what they let their children watch or have access to. Finding porn online is as easy as mistyping a web address, and even if what you watch is not as evil as porn, the things you fill yourself with – books, movies, TV shows, etc., – really do influence and change you.

Bad company ruins good morals (1 Corinthians 15:33), and if what you keep company with is sinful, you’ll find yourself warped by it. Mr. Beast is sending a message to millions of kids around the world through his acceptance of Tyson’s change. Even if he doesn’t make a big deal of it and simply keeps Tyson on the show, kids all around the world are going to see that someone they look up to, admire, and wish to be thinks this is okay and normal.

This news provides a great discussion opportunity for you and your kids. Sin is awful, especially sexual sin, and those who are caught in it become slaves to it. These are chains that are incredibly difficult to throw off.

Chris Tyson is bound by the chains of this sin. We need to pray for him, Mr. Beast, and the rest of the Mr. Beast crew to see the light of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

(Picture of Tyson’s transition)

America’s children are being targeted by sex predators. Their recruiters are already in our schools and libraries. These “transgender” people need your children as converts. Consider:

• Children returning from school carrying “gender unicorn lessons,” which teach strange ideas of sex and gender.
• Public libraries are conditioning your children through “drag queen readings” to get children familiar with these recruiters.
• Schools are hiding from parents that they’re giving puberty blocking drugs to their children.

The transgender people insist that they be allowed to access and recruit children, and that you accept them as being of their assumed sex – even in private places like separate-sex bathrooms. They claim, “trans rights are civil rights.”

If you oppose them, you’re charged with genocide- of mass murdering hordes of children. But, if you don’t oppose them, you’ll end up losing your rights as parents and all of the children will be prey to sexual and financial abuse. Read on to become aware of how the transgender agenda destroys parents’ oversight, age of consent, and causes bodily harm to their young victims.

Sexually flailing against God’s creation

People practicing homosexuality want to be accepted as normal by society. That is what the “love is love” campaign is all about. Likewise, people practicing transgender behaviors want us to affirm their choices. Why, then, do Christians actively oppose homosexuality and transgenderism? It’s not out of hate for these people, but because God hates these behaviors. Even if we wanted to affirm them, we couldn’t do that and also have a God-honoring society.

In Genesis, we read how God created everything, including Adam (a man) and Eve (a woman). God told Adam “from any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17, NASB). But Adam decided he didn’t trust God’s version of good and evil, and sought his own understanding. This was the sin of Adam– that he pursued his own version of right and wrong.

Homosexuality is a manifestation of Adam’s sin. God hates it because, at its root, it is rebellion against Him and rejecting His creation. They’ll have man-to-man, or woman-to-woman, sex and curse us if we tell them that this is wrong. An article from Got Questions calls it “shaking our fists at God.”

Homosexuality is not the cause of a society’s decline, but it is a symptom of it; it is the result of people making themselves the final authorities. Romans 1 gives the natural digression of a society that has chosen idolatry and sinful pleasure instead of obedience to God. The downward spiral begins with denying that God has absolute authority over His creation (Romans 1:21-23).

The result of a society’s rejection of God’s rule in their lives is that God gives “them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:24-25). Verses 26 and 27 say, “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” The phrase “God gave them over” means that, when we insist on shaking our fists at God, He finally lets us have the perversion we demand. And that is a judgment in itself. Homosexual behavior is the result of ignoring God and trying to create our own truth. When we defy God’s clear instruction, we reap the “due penalty” of our disobedience (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9; Revelation 21:8).

Transgenderism is a variant of homosexuality. The important difference between them is that a man or woman claims to be of the other sex – an assertion in defiance of the facts. It’s another claim of godhood, that someone can declare their own sex and it becomes true because they say so. We’re all supposed to chime in and affirm this claim, much like throwing a pinch of incense to Caesar. Frequently, but not always, transgender behavior also includes surgical removal of a person’s sex organs.

A key thing about transgenderism is how you can’t just ignore it. People are in your face about you acknowledging the sex assertion, and about you using “preferred pronouns.” Woe to you if you disagree with them. Walter Hudson, a state legislator from Minnesota, commented about this:

We used to take our differences a lot more seriously. But we eventually settled on a social contract rooted in classical liberalism, the notion that neighbors should be able to peacefully co-exist without demanding renunciation of sacred belief. The transgender community has not received that memo. Despite individual exceptions, the general rule among the dominant trans culture is an illiberal insistence upon affirmation. It’s not enough for them to believe that “transgender women are women.” You must believe it too. You must confess it with your mouth upon every social interaction. You must call a guy cosmetically altered to appear as a woman “she,” or you will be found guilty of heresy and summarily convicted in the court of public opinion. At the very least, your sentence will be social censure and condemnation. More likely, you will lose your job or face other grave consequences that hobble your capacity to live…

The dominant trans culture has successfully employed a repressive cultural strategy of social censure and unearned indignation to enforce a code of conduct that “affirms” their beliefs. Of course, it amounts to gaslighting. No one believes that the man cosmetically altered to appear as a woman has become a woman. But you’re expected to “affirm” that lie with every use of a “preferred pronoun” as an act of fealty and submission. It’s enforced with severe social censure for violations of trans decorum, which typically involves being treated as beneath contempt.

Christians aspire to proclaim the gospel, and to build a Christian society (Matt. 13:33, 28:18-20). America still has a strong Christian influence, and our standards of right and wrong are measured by what the Bible says. God hates homosexuality, in either form, and judges a society that approves of it (Gen. 19:15-26; Rom. 1:26-27). This means that building a Christian society includes opposing homosexuality and transgenderism.

Transgenderism brings unwelcome surprises

Are Christians being meanies, not letting an “oppressed minority” experience full acceptance into American society? No, we’re trying to protect our society from predators, who would use this acceptance to exploit and hurt children. After everything is said and done, this conflict is over recruiting children into transgenderism.

Consider the rage over a  Texas bill, which would ban sexual transition surgery on minors. And look at the concern about a Florida bill that, only modestly, regulates when transgender concepts could be taught in public schools. It certainly is about the children.

If America gives these advocates what they demand, if they convince us that it’s fair and just to yield to their claims, then look at the life-changing surprises awaiting us.

Surprise #1: Transgender education is already in American schools

Of the things a people can expect of society, perhaps protecting the vulnerable is its most important task. And children are its most vulnerable group, because they’re innocent of how the world might mistreat them. American society provides them special protection through concepts like “age of consent,” and by the understanding that their parents are their legal guardians. This has been consistently confirmed, most famously in the Wisconsin v. Yoder Supreme Court case:

The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.

However, teaching children about transgender behaviors has already been forced into public schools, without seeking parents’ consent and usually without notice. It’s done because  teachers believe that the students belong to them. In practice, teachers, administrators, and school boards act like they can they can do as they please with their students.

They approve, not merely permit, teaching transgenderism, and seek to indocrinate students even in kindergarten. They teach propaganda like “assigned sex at birth”and “gender unicorns.” They even seek to reach three-year-old children with these lessons! To evade parental oversight, they counsel children in secret, and deny what they’re doing.

Don’t be fooled in thinking that your “excellent school district” doesn’t do that stuff. They probably do already, for so much of their agenda is set by state bureaucracies. Remember what Ronald Reagan said: “Trust, but verify.”

Surprise #2: Transgender agenda overrules “age of consent”

The point of the “age of consent” is that the parents protect a child from making uninformed or immature decisions. The child increasingly learns how the world works, and his or her parents give increased personal control.

Young children know nothing about how “gender-affirming” therapy changes the body’s development. Even drug therapy has permanent consequences. If you stop taking the drugs the body doesn’t play “catch-up” for the years of missed development. No youth of nine or ten has the wisdom, or skepticism, to understand the implications of tampering with puberty.

Non-parental counselors are conflicted, having self-interests to not tell the youth of any potential problems. We used to call people like this “predators” and “child exploiters.” Yet transgender advocates demand that youth be allowed to make these decisions without parental approval. For example, the Minnesota Lt. Governor said, “when our children tell us who they are, it is our job as grown-ups to listen and to believe them,” she added. “That’s what it means to be a good parent.” Not true, because a good parent looks for the best interests of a child, and much of love means saying “no.”

Surprise #3: All ages of consent could be nullified

If a child can consent, without having parental approval, to body-altering procedures, even surgery, then the “age of consent” is nullified. Perhaps some advocate will then petition a judge that the sexual age of consent should also be nullified. A similar argument exists for removing the minimum age for entering into financial contracts. This results in many exploiters, and many hurt children.

Surprise #4: Parental oversight would effectively be abolished

In a transgender-affirming world, a child can ask for, and expect to get, body-altering treatments without parental permission. And the schools can effectively ignore the parents, teaching things and transitioning youth without their parents’ knowledge. After all of that, what is left of parental oversight?

In Minnesota, the enmity towards parents is so strong that the legislature passed a law, making the state a sanctuary for children who want to run away and get transgender treatment there. And the state will fight the parents when they ask for the return of their child. By the way, isn’t it a crime for an adult to help a child make that journey across state lines?

Let’s take this farther. If parental oversight isn’t respected, then what purpose is served by a family? Why should society, or the law, honor it? In 1920 the socialists in Soviet Russia asked this question, and decided that abolishing the family was a good idea. That turned out horribly, and families were again honored – but only after many lives were ruined.

Affirming transgender behavior opens a big box of trouble

As you see, we can’t simply say “let them have their way” and we all live happily together. A decision to normalize, to affirm, transgender behavior, in the scope they want it for, will soon lead to widespread child exploitation and neutering of the protective family environment. This would be a major change in American society. Decisions like this shouldn’t be made by manipulating some judges, or through bureaucracy. It is a major deal, and demands public debate.

Opposing transgender agenda is not genocide

We’ve seen how submitting to transgender demands would cause much harm to American children. A Christian culture ought to prevent this harm by rejecting their assertions, and not changing society to suit these demands. At minimum this means:

• A man might claim to be a woman, or a woman a man. But that doesn’t grant any rights or privileges other than those of the person’s biological sex.
• A person doesn’t have any legal right to require others to recognize him or her as their claimed, non-biological, sex.
• Civil rights laws don’t favor someone’s pretending to his or her non-biological sex.

However, transgender activists claim that opposing them amounts to genocide. Here’s the advocacy site, OutFront Magazine, claiming that denying transitioning drugs or surgery amounts to a crime against humanity:

While, of course, this convention, passed by the Third United Nations General Assembly in 1948, does not specifically mention sexual orientation, gender identity, romantic orientation, etcetera, the objects of the oppression of the queer community, including the trans community, such communities should obviously be included under such a definition.

The sentiment of the opening clause is that, in short, genocide is the purposeful destruction of an oppressed societal out-group on the basis that they are that group, and such unequivocally includes the entirety of the queer community.

Regarding the transgender community specifically, many enacted policies, or policies attempting to be enacted, in the modern-day meet such a definition. The aforementioned policies of banning transgender healthcare for trans youths are potentially the most egregious instances of violation of this definition of genocide.

Puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy, the topics of these policies, have been shown to drastically reduce the horrifically high suicide rate of transgender youths, saving lives. To block trans youth from such a treatment manufactures a higher suicide rate and thus manufacture more suicides, more deaths within the transgender community, specifically amongst youth.

That is, it’s genocide because they wish it were so. But they are preying on our youth, and blaming us when their targets despair. It seems far more likely that the children are hanging out with the wrong adults, “groomers” if you will. And according to the articles I provided earlier, our public school teachers and employees seem to be at the forefront of transgender recruitment.

On the Dr. Phil show, a transgender man (biological female) named Reece explains her decision process. Note that she thinks that using transitioning drugs at age eight is a really fine and normal thing. And if you should deny these drugs, she thinks that this would be genocide.

One of Dr. Phil’s guests not only defended trans medical procedures for minors but claimed that it is absolutely vital for their mental health.

“Being able to start my transition at 11 was just so overwhelming and scary, but exciting, and I feel grateful. Say that a trans person came out at 8, and they had to wait till they were 18 to start hormone replacement therapy and not even able to get puberty blockers so their body has to fully now go through puberty,” Reece, a trans man, said. “That now makes transitioning 10 times more hard and traumatizing.”

Reece went on to say that legal regulations to prevent these procedures being done to minors is akin to mass-murder.

“It’s extremely important for trans youth to be able to transition at puberty, I think, without that, all of these kids who know who they are deep down inside would never get the opportunity to live their childhood as their truth. And I think that’s just horrendous. And I think it’s just transgender genocide. If I was not able to transition at the age I was, I would not have made it to 18. I do not think the government should be denying trans health care. It’s life-saving healthcare,” Reece said.

The guest went on to contradict themselves when describing hesitation to actually go through with a double mastectomy at a young age and deciding to “wait till I’m older.”

Reece then said, “I didn’t want to wait. I was eligible at 15. I went to get it at 15 and I just was too young to go through with it at that age for myself personally, but someone who has a bigger chest who is also that age would definitely need it if they felt like they did and I think they should be able to get it.”

These two articles underline that the transgender community wants your children. After all, it’s hard to assume the appearance of the other sex after you already have adult genitals. So they evangelize the children early, before puberty, especially before they’ve got the wisdom to resist.

In a more general sense, stopping this agenda will indeed shut down the transgender community. Without getting easy converts, it won’t be much fun for them to do their role playing. But it’s not genocide. By that logic, you may as well claim that enforcing traffic laws is “genocide against speeders.” So saying “genocide” is just using a scary word. Why not also call us “fascists” and “racists,” to get full value out of using scary sounding, but no longer meaningful, words.

Don’t be afraid to eliminate child abuse, and child maiming, by opposing the transgender agenda. But this agenda would be implemented not through legislation, but by top politicians changing bureaucratic rules, such as the words in the Civil Rights Act. We must be loud and persistent in getting our politicians to behave, because we really do care.

**Reader Discretion Strongly Advised**

How many times have conservatives heard “progressives” claim that the controversial, obscene material they want taught to children is “age-appropriate”? Now, how many times have your heard conservatives respond by demanding to know specifically what criteria are used to determine “appropriateness”—age or any other kind? How many times have you heard conservatives demand to know specifically who socially constructed the criteria used to determine appropriateness and specifically which teacher suggested that a controversial, obscene book or play be taught?

Taxpayers are entitled to know the criteria, names of creators of criteria, and names of teachers who choose controversial, obscene material. Concealment facilitates unethical behavior among teachers and breeds distrust among taxpayers. Transparency fosters trust and accountability. Government school teachers who are paid by the public want absolute autonomy and absolute anonymity, and that is why we now have adults introducing obscene material to other people’s children.

As an example, here are several writing prompts for high school students in Hudson, Ohio. These prompts prompt children to use their imaginations to focus on sexual immorality and violence:

• Write a sex scene you wouldn’t show your mom. Rewrite the sex scene into one you would let your mom read.

• You have just been caught in bed by a jealous spouse. How will you talk your way out of this?

• Write a sermon for a beloved preacher who has been caught in a sex scandal.

• You are a serial killer. What tv shows are on your DVR list? Why?

• Describe a time when you wanted to orgasm but couldn’t.

• Write an X-rated Disney scenario.

No worries, rationalize supporters, these are just a few prompts from among the hundreds offered in a book of prompts that taxpayers subsidized. And anyway, such prompts appeal to teens and gets their creative juices flowing—or so rationalize the creepy adults who eye little children with bad intent.

(As an aside, weren’t those Hudson, Ohio teachers able to come up with writing prompts on their own? Isn’t that what they’re paid for?)

Many parents don’t realize that appealing to the sensibilities and appetites of adolescents assumed a dominant place in the selection process of English teachers decades ago. There’s another word for capitulating to the tastes of adolescents: it’s called pandering.

Schools should teach those texts that students will likely not read on their own. Schools should teach those texts that are intellectually challenging and offer insight, wisdom, beauty, and truth. Schools should avoid those that are highly polemical, blasphemous, and vulgar.

These writing prompts embody the perverse obsession with sex that many authors who write Young Adult (YA) novels share, that change-agents teach, and that government schools purchase with limited taxpayer funds.

Here are some quotes from The Perks of Being a Wallflower, which is found in most middle school libraries and recommended and taught in many classrooms:

• I guess I forgot to mention in my last letter that it was Patrick who told me about masturbation. I guess I forgot to tell you how often I do it now, which is a lot. … I started using blankets, but then the blankets hurt, so I started using pillows, but then the pillows hurt, so I went back to [the] normal [way].

• And the boy kept working up the girl’s shirt, and as much as she said no, he kept working it. After a few minutes, she stopped protesting, and he pulled her shirt off, and she had a white bra on with lace. … Pretty soon, he took off her bra and started to kiss her breasts. And then he put his hand down her pants, and she started moaning. … He reached to take off her pants, but she started crying really hard, so he reached for his own. He pulled his pants and underwear down to his knees. After a few minutes, the boy pushed the girl’s head down, and she started to kiss his p****. She was still crying. Finally, she stopped crying because he put his p**** in her mouth, and I don’t think you can cry in that position.

• When most people left, Brad and Patrick went into Patrick’s room. They had sex for the first time that night. I don’t want to go into detail about it, because it’s pretty private stuff, but I will say that Brad assumed the role of the girl in terms of where you put things.

• One night Patrick took me to this park where men go and find each other. Patrick told me that if I didn’t want to be bothered by anyone that I should just not make eye contact. He said that eye contact is how you agree to fool around anonymously. Nobody talks. They just find places to go. After a while, Patrick saw someone he liked.

In the face of criticism, those who rationalize teaching obscene, pro-“LGBTQ+” novels to adolescents roll their condescending eyes and call those who object to such material it prudes who take words out of context. But there is no context that renders graphic sex acceptable in texts purchased with public funds and taught to minor children.

Here are some more out-of-context quotes, these from the novel Lawn Boy by Jonathan Evison—another YA book in school libraries–a coming-of-age novel in which the protagonist begins to feel fulfilled only after he embraces a homosexual identity and which includes obscenity like “f**k” and “s**t” on virtually every page:

• “G**damn-f**king-c**t-f**k-s**t-ass-f**ker!” I yelled.

• “What if I told you I touched another guy’s d**k? … “What if I told you I s****ed it?” … “I was ten years old, but it’s true. I put Doug Goble’s d**k in my mouth.” … “I was in fourth grade. It was no big deal.” … “He s***ed mine, too.” … “And you know what? … “It wasn’t terrible.”

I wonder if a coming-of-age novel in which a young adult who experiences unchosen homoerotic attraction finds fulfillment once he rejects homoerotic relationships could get published, positively reviewed, and purchased for school libraries.

Saturday Oct. 2, 2021 marked the end of another “Banned Books Week” sponsored by the sanctimonious, hypocritical, leftist American Library Association (ALA) that regularly violates its own principles of intellectual freedom and has no principles regarding morality.

The ALA makes this disturbing statement:

Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights. The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users.

Apparently, to members of the ALA, even five-year-olds should be free to access the porn available on library computers, in books, and in magazines.

The ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom claims to oppose the proscription of materials based on “partisan disapproval”:

Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

If that’s the case, then why are there so few YA novels that depict homosexuality as unhealthy or depict cross-sex identification as disordered?

The ALA tries to divert attention from this obvious hypocrisy by appealing to its own “Collection Development Policies.” But they can’t do their dirty censorship deeds alone. It requires the collusion of publishing companies, book review organizations, and libraries.

“Collection Development Policies”—created by leftists—are used to select which books to purchase. These policies establish what will be considered in selecting which books to buy. Books are chosen based on the “Reputation and qualifications of the author, publisher or producer, with preference generally given to titles vetted in the editing and publishing industry.”

And guess what—leftists control the publishing companies and professional review journals on whom librarians depend for determining which books they will purchase. It’s a nice circular set-up that enables leftists to conceal their bias and book-banning.

That may explain why Wheaton North High School in Wheaton, Illinois carries the obscene comic book “graphic novel” Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe but doesn’t carry either When Harry Became Sally by Ryan T. Anderson or Irreparable Damage by Wall Street Journal reporter Abigail Shrier.

And it likely explains why school and community libraries all around the country carry the picture book I Am Jazz and numerous other picture books affirming cross-dressing in children. But how many carry the books I’m Glad God Made Me a Girl by Denise Shick, whose father began masquerading as a woman when Ms. Shick was a child, thereby causing her untold suffering.

What becomes obscured in all these discussions of book-banning or selection criteria is the egregious offense of using public money to subsidize curricula and activities that undermine many taxpayers’ deepest beliefs and morals.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Taxpayer-Funded-Libraries-Defend-Obscenity-Child-Corruption-and-Censorship.mp3

Written by Patience Griswold

A recent Wall Street Journal investigation offered a glimpse into the world that a minor when scrolling through Tik Tok, the most popular social media platform among America’s teenagers. It wasn’t pretty. The journalists set up 31 fake Tik Tok accounts posing as 13–15-year-old users and discovered that the algorithm very quickly started showing them sexually explicit content, sexual violence, and links to OnlyFans. The fact that the age set on each of the 31 accounts was set at 15 or younger made no difference as pornographic content and links made their way into each account’s feed.

It’s not just Tick Tock — in their book Treading Boldly Through a Pornographic World, Daniel Weiss and Joshua Glaser report that, while 18 percent of 13–17-year-olds report that they seek out pornographic content on a weekly basis, over 20 percent say that they come across it unintentionally on a weekly basis. We live in a pornified culture, and parents today are presented with the challenge of navigating a world in which most children will have been exposed to pornography by the time they turn 13 and a growing number of children are addicted to pornography. In light of this sobering reality, it is imperative that families and churches gain a clear understanding of this issue and respond wisely as we embrace beauty of God’s design for sexuality and reject the distortions that our culture offers.

Pornography use is increasingly common among Generation Z, with 57 percent of young adults and 37 percent of teens regularly using pornography, and this problem increasingly affects girls as well as boys. Although pornography has traditionally been treated as a male problem, it is regularly used by one in three young women between the ages of 13–24. As Shane Morris recently noted on Twitter,

“The received wisdom is that girls aren’t visual creatures like guys. Porn doesn’t care about the received wisdom.”

Parents need to equip themselves to guide their daughters as well as their sons through a pornified culture by directing them toward the goodness and beauty of God’s design for sexuality, and both men and women need to flee temptation, seek out accountability, and put sin to death. Nowhere does Scripture teach that only men are capable of lust or that women’s lust is less sinful.

Not only is pornography use rampant among Generation Z, an alarming number of young people do not believe there is anything wrong with using pornography. Citing research from Barna Research Group, Glaser and Weiss report that only 32 percent of teens believe that using pornography is sometimes or always immoral. By contrast, 56 percent believe that not recycling is usually or always morally wrong. “Our culture has declared ‘wars’ on obesity and environmental exploitation, and our children have naturally absorbed and internalized those messages,” they write. “In a similar way, they have absorbed and internalized the availability of pornography and our culturally blasé attitude toward it.”

From the flippancy with which it is treated in the entertainment industry and by the media, to the lack of urgency toward the fact that children are frequently exposed to pornography, to the prevailing attitude that “everyone does it,” children and teens are being taught that pornography is no big deal.

It doesn’t have to be this way. When The New York Times published an exposé on how Pornhub, one of the largest adult entertainment platforms in the U.S., was profiting off of trafficking and abuse, major credit card companies quickly cut ties with the platform, cutting off their means of revenue and demonstrating the power of companies to take a stand against pornography. Additionally, there are multiple policy solutions that could be pursued, including implementing an age-verification system similar to what the U.K. considered two years ago, requiring internet-service providers to create an opt-in system so that the default setting excludes pornography, and stripping sites that distribute obscene content such as pornography of Section 230 immunity.

Individuals can and must also take a stand. Our culture is actively communicating to an entire generation that pornography is harmless fun. What they need instead is for the adults in their lives to communicate loud and clear that pornography is never harmless — it is destructive, exploitative, and addictive, and it takes sex, something that God created to be good and beautiful as an expression of intimacy between a husband and wife, and reduces it to voyeurism.

The church cannot be silent on this issue, and parents must equip themselves to raise their children in a world that is hostile to God’s design for sexuality. The rise in young people accidentally accessing pornographic content points to the need for families to set wise boundaries around technology and to avoid giving children unsupervised screen time, and as they get older, to help them grow in practicing wisdom and self-control in their internet usage and to have open and honest conversations with them about pornography and sexuality, consistently pointing them to the goodness of God’s design.

This article was originally published by the Minnesota Family Council.

Many self-identifying Republicans have no understanding of the term “conservatism.” Case in point, the recent kerfuffle that ensued when conservative leaders of the Turning Point USA organization rightfully revoked an invitation to porn star “Brandi Love” to attend the Student Action Summit as a VIP. Love was asked to leave the event intended for high school and college students after attendees found out what she does for a living. To be clear, Love, who self-identifies as “conservative,” is not a former porn star. She is a current porn star who heartily affirms pornography.

Anyone who celebrates, voluntarily performs in, and profits from pornography or any other “sex work” is, by those acts, not conservative. A conservative who engages in or approves of “sex work,” porn use, legalized human slaughter, cross-sex impersonation, or homosexual acts or relationships is not conservative. The Republican big tent should no more include affirmation of pornography (or same-sex faux-marriage, abortion, or cross-sex identification) than it should include climate hysteria, China-collaboration, or open border fanaticism.

Suffering from a case of unrighteous indignation, the judgmental Love huffed and puffed that TPUSA felt “like a religious cult” because of the presence of conservative Christians. That makes three subjects about which she knows little:  religious cults, Christianity, and conservatism.

Love asked rhetorically, “How can conservatives expect to grow as a movement when they don’t seem to respect professions?” Seriously? What principle demands conservatives hold “sex work” in esteem?

And if the growth of the conservative movement does require inclusion of the porn industry, then it deserves to die.

Love continued in her criticism of TPUSA’s decision to disinvite her: “It’s stupid to persecute people who have a different lifestyle than you.” She sounds remarkably like run-of-the-mill leftists who see dissent from their moral and political views as persecution, bigotry, and hatred.

Her “lifestyle” emerges from and is justified by her moral and political beliefs—beliefs that are antithetical to conservative moral and political beliefs. Disinviting a public figure who affirms and celebrates acts that grossly violate conservative principles does not constitute persecution.

At least as troubling as Love being invited in the first place to the event at which teens as young as 15 were present are the responses from purported conservatives like Federalist co-founder Ben Domenech who tweeted, “The right has an opportunity to be the big tent party. Don’t be a bunch of prudes.”

Calling conservatives who oppose pornography, which degrades women and destroys families, “a bunch of prudes” exposes Domenech’s ignorance and unfitness for a leadership role in any conservative movement. Sexual continence and boundaries are essential for the welfare and prosperity of any society. Reining in the prodigious and profligate sexual impulses of humans—especially male humans—is a first order, necessary business of any healthy society—far more important than business regulations or tax rates.

That Domenech sanctimoniously dismisses opposition to body-, soul-, family-, and culture-destroying pornography as prudery, designating it an obstacle to the GOP quest for power is a sure sign that the decline of America will continue. Domenech and his collaborators don’t really want a big tent. They want porn stars and homosexuals in the tent and theologically orthodox Christians out, or at least silenced and neutered.

Love strained to use conservative principles to defend her position:

TPUSA literally opened the show talking about how we need to fight back against big tech censorship, cancel culture, the deterioration of our 1^st Amendment. … and then they expelled me. … It’s a worst case example of cancel culture.

Nope, big tech didn’t censor her. Her First Amendment rights were not denied. And being asked to leave the event was not an example of cancel culture, no matter how many times she and her creepy fans assert it was.

Love’s obscene twitter feed is filled with comments from supporters who self-identify as “conservative” and apparently believe that private conservative organizations that adhere to their own principles—which include opposition to sexual deviance—are card-carrying members of the cancel culture. For the woefully ill-informed, here’s the difference between cancel culture and disinviting a porn star from a private conservative event:

Cancel culture seeks to ban the expression of ideas from the public square, for example, from open social media platforms, college campuses, and the opinion pages of newspapers. Cancel culture seeks to get people fired from their jobs for expressing ideas leftists hate.

TPUSA is a private organization hosting an event to promote conservative ideas. Disinviting a public figure who not only opposes some of TPUSA’s beliefs—especially fundamental ideas about sexuality—but also actively works against them in ways that TPUSA views as destructive is not an act of cancellation.

A brief word about the size of government: While conservatives want smaller government—much smaller government—they do not desire the abolition of government. Conservatives want a smaller government that governs wisely and judiciously. And conservatives believe in absolute, perduring, objective moral truths upon which proper governing depends and without which governing becomes an exercise in raw power. Conservatives seek to conserve something.

Russell Kirk, author of the hugely influential book, The Conservative Mind, wrote that conservatism has some essential constituent features that should shape laws and policies, including a

Belief that a divine intent rules society as well as conscience, forging an eternal chain of right and duty which links great and obscure, living and dead. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. … Politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which is above nature. … Man must put a control upon his will and his appetite, for conservatives know man to be governed more by emotion than by reason.  Tradition and sound prejudice provide checks upon man’s anarchic impulse.

These tenets are as indispensable to conservatism as respect for private property and opposition to efforts to eradicate class distinctions. These tenets are as fundamental to conservatism as is a preference for slow change over “innovation” that “is a devouring conflagration more often than it is a torch of progress.”

Rather than expending so much energy trying to transform or deform the GOP’s position on sexual matters—matters that are essential to a well-ordered society conducive to human flourishing—maybe Love should join the Democrat Party and try to change its position on borders, China, and tax rates.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Porn-Star-Rightly-Kicked-Out-of-Conservative-Political-Event.mp3

The title is a reference to a concept espoused decades ago by U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY). The idea was not original to Moynihan, but the phrase meant that as bad behavior becomes more pervasive a limit is crossed and society simply begins to accept it.

The same year that Senator Moynihan gained notice for his comments, columnist Charles Krauthammer expanded Moynihan’s point by suggesting the opposite. Not only were we “normalizing what was once considered deviant,” but we were also “finding deviant what was once considered normal.” As morals decline, the rejection of morality also occurs. We see this more and more today.

It seems that the pervasive nature of pornography, which is available like never before in history, is impacting mindsets. According to Gallup Polling, the percent of Americans who now say that pornography is “morally acceptable” is at an all-time high with 43 percent now expressing this view, up from 36 percent in the previous year’s survey.

The Institute for Family Studies discusses some of the implications of this.  One of the problems they note is that the people who view pornography at younger ages are less likely to marry or more likely to delay marriage.

The theory that porn use is linked to a decline in marriage is one that University of Austin professor Mark Regnerus, the author of Cheap Sex, has noted with the Institute before. “At best, porn will augment—or compete with—sex, and stall marriage,” Regnerus warned. “At worst, sexual technology threatens to undermine coupled sex altogether.”

Beyond marriage, other experts worry about the long-term impact of widespread pornography on the mental, emotional, and spiritual health of young people who are growing up in a porn-saturated world.  A study by BYU professor and family therapist Mark Butler found a link between young people’s increasing use of pornography and their experience of loneliness and isolation. Butler suggested that pornography’s “potential to mislead and misshape young people’s views of women and men, relationships, intimacy, and sexuality during their formative years is very real—making a pornography-loneliness partnership a threat to their overall sexual and relational well-being.”

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

On February 12, 2021, two anonymous plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in Alabama Federal Court against pornographer MG Freesites, an international syndicated pornography corporation headquartered in the Republic of Cyprus and having organizations and doing business in at least 6 countries including the U.S. (as Mindgeek, USA, Inc., Delaware).

For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. ~Ephesians 5:12

Intentionally avoiding further promotion of Mindgeek’s evil operations, it is noted that Mindgeek owns and operates some of the most well-known and well-trafficked web-sites where illegal pornography, including some of the worst imaginable perversion, is provided for free, to everyone, everywhere, on the Internet.

In “Doe v. Mindgeek” (plaintiff’s identities protected by a pseudonym) two plaintiffs, representative of all similarly situated victims, now-adult women, who were under eighteen years of age at the time of filming, were drugged, raped and depicted in commercial sex acts and child pornography, which was then made available for viewing on websites owned, operated and controlled by defendant pornographers who exploited this unbelievably vile child sex abuse material for profit.

The conscience of our society is becoming more and more seared with respect to the horrible wickedness of pornography.

As a very sobering, and particularly educational for us who are parents, reminder of how serious this problem is, and our culture’s typical reaction, readers are encouraged to recall the impact of pornography on serial killer Ted Bundy as shown in Dr. James Dobson’s famous interview (1989).

It is a great providence therefore, that several federal laws have been passed in recent years to penalize wicked  businesses engaging in sex trafficking and child pornography.

Congress passed in 2000, re-authorized in 2003, and amended in 2008, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”) penalizing the full range of human trafficking offenses, including the sex trafficking of children under the age of 18 or sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion.

This law:

• permits a party to bring a civil claim against perpetrators,
• and against a person who, although not the actual perpetrator of a violation, knowingly benefited from participating in a venture that it should have known was engaged in a violation,
• and makes it a crime to benefit financially or receive anything of value from participation in a venture which knowingly solicits by any means a person to engage in a commercial sex act,
• or that the person has not attained the age of 18 years old and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act.
• eliminates the requirement of proof that a particular defendant knew a sex trafficking victim was a minor if the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the minor.
• allows sex trafficking survivors to bring suit against anyone who benefits financially or receives anything of value from the violation.

The 2018 passage of the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (“FOSTA”) and Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (“SESTA”) clarified that these laws would be enforced against internet and web-based companies that advertise and profit from sex trafficking. The FOSTA/SESTA amendment to the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) makes web-based companies liable regardless of whether the conduct occurred, before or after enactment.

These are great laws, providing significant criminal and civil liability to these businesses, but somebody has to go after them!

That is why it is very encouraging for this long overdue legal action to move forward. It is the very heart of justice in our American Republican self-government.

The complaint alleges that one prominent Mindgeek web-site uploads 18,000 videos daily, with an average length of approximately 11 minutes per video.  Mindgeek’s attempt to avoid publishing material in violation of these laws requires moderators to review approximately 1,100 minutes of video each hour.

The complaint further alleges that Mindgeek’s employees, knowing this to be an impossible task,  are even encouraged not to remove child pornography by its policy of paying annual bonuses based on the number of videos approved.

The complaint alleges that the images of plaintiffs continue to be displayed, despite being identified as minors and requests to remove them.

The suit requests injunctive or any other equitable relief to plaintiffs and requires the defendants to identify and remove child pornography and implement a very long list of corporate-wide policies and practices to prevent continued dissemination of child pornography or child sex trafficking.

The suit also requests all available damages, in favor of both plaintiffs and the entire class, including:

• compensatory and punitive damages,
• prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys’ fees,
• and restitution and disgorgement of all profits and unjust enrichment obtained as a result of defendants’ unlawful conduct.

It is easy to see that such an award could be enormous.

If successful, this case has the potential to severely harm this morally debased business through:

• Taking back large amounts of money gained from illegal activities,
• Eliciting enormous punitive damages for intentional bad behavior (readers may recall the Liebeck v. McDonald‘s coffee spill case, where actual damages of $200,000 were awarded, with $2.7 million dollars of punitive damages added for McDonald’s bad behavior), multiplied by thousands or millions of victims of sexual trafficking and child pornography,
• Ordering cumbersome, potentially business-threatening, policies and practices to actually prevent further violations, and
• Exposure to additional criminal action

The case looks very good from a legal perspective, satisfying all elements of the relevant laws.  These are excellent and world-class attorneys representing plaintiffs.  The judge is a George W. Bush appointee.  A success will open the door for similar lawsuits, and possible criminal action.

They dug a pit in my way, but they have fallen into it themselves.  ~Psalm 57:6b

In addition to winning the suit however, the most difficult obstacles to recovery and destruction of this evil business, will be identifying more class members, and the difficulty of enforcement of court sanctions against a largely foreign corporation.

Christians should continually pray for the attorneys and plaintiffs in this action, and also that the Lord would bring similar lawsuits to other pornographers.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

Warning: Reader Discretion is Advised

Leftists do not seek only to destroy, divide, cancel, and erase. They seek also to re-fashion a brave new world. A look at two recent cultural events reveals the kind of world with which leftists hope to replace cancelled America.

The most recent was Sunday’s Super Bowl during which a vulgar man/boy who calls himself the Weekend performed his song “Earn It” which is a paean to sadomasochism written for the softcore porn movie Fifty Shades of Grey which was based on the twisted softcore porn bodice ripper Fifty Shades of Grey. In the name of “equity,” leftists want to get women as addicted to porn as men are.

An official video of “Earn It” available on YouTube for every man, woman, and child to view consists of the man/boy Weekend, leering creepily at half a dozen women wearing only pasties and thongs with big black Xs on their buttocks who gyrate sexually while carrying the accouterments of sadomasochism. Google, which cancels conservative ideas and which owns YouTube, finds nothing troubling at all about providing a platform for a softcore porn video that objectifies and exploits women—i.e., adult female humans.

Sanctimonious leftists continually preach sermons about which ideas must be cancelled because they’re destructive and immoral. Apparently, those leftists think the Weekend is wholly undeserving of cancellation, because he never says anything destructive or immoral.

Unlike the destructive act of saying men can’t become women or saying the union of two people of the same sex can never be a marriage, porn and sadomasochism never hurt women, children, or families—or so leftists claim. Here’s a brief excerpt from one of the Weekend’s “songs” that, presumably, leftists think is healthy and good for America:

I think I’ve finally fell in love now

Her name is Tammy, she got hella bitches

She let me f*ck ’em while my ni**as film it …

…

Girl go ’head and show me how you go down

And I feel my whole body peakin’

And I’m f*ckin’ anybody with they legs wide

Got me higher than a ni**ga from the West Side

If anyone affirms sexual deviance, and the abuse, exploitation, and objectification of women, the left will definitely not cancel them. Instead, sexual libertines will be given the most colossal platforms leftists can find. And leftist ideological tyrants make sure those platforms are ones that children can access.

The second cultural event took place just two days before the Super Bowl when LA Times and Wired Magazine writer Virginia Heffernan wrote a condescending column in which she argues that even acts of unselfish generosity on the parts of Trump voters require nothing more than a begrudging smidge of appreciation. She defends her bitter intolerance as a legitimate response for the indefensible sin of voting for Trump:

The Trumpites next door to our pandemic getaway, who seem as devoted to the ex-president as you can get without being Q fans, just plowed our driveway without being asked and did a great job.

How am I going to resist demands for unity in the face of this act of aggressive niceness?

Of course, on some level, I realize I owe them thanks—and, man, it really looks like the guy back-dragged the driveway like a pro—but how much thanks?

Heffernan’s answer is suggested in her question. She plans to respond minimally:

[w]ith a wave and a thanks, a minimal start on building back trust. I’m not ready to knock on the door with a covered dish yet.

I also can’t give my neighbors absolution; it’s not mine to give. Free driveway work, as nice as it is, is just not the same currency as justice and truth. To pretend it is would be to lie, and they probably aren’t looking for absolution anyway.

But I can offer a standing invitation to make amends. Not with a snowplow but by recognizing the truth about the Trump administration and, more important, by working for justice for all those whom the administration harmed. Only when we work shoulder to shoulder to repair the damage of the last four years will we even begin to dig out of this storm.

Absolution? What arrogant audacity to imply 74 million Americans need absolution for voting their consciences; for voting to try to protect their children’s economic futures; for voting to protect the jobs of those in the energy sector; for voting to preserve energy independence; for voting to secure our borders in the same way other countries secure their borders; for voting to protect our children from indoctrination with leftist sexuality beliefs and Critical Race Theory;  for voting to protect our children from having to undress in the presence of peers of the opposite sex; for voting to protect the First and Second Amendments; and for voting to protect the lives of humans in the womb.

In the grimy hands and bendy minds of oily leftists, justice and truth are slippery concepts. Many Trump voters think, for example, that men can’t be women, and that falsifying birth certificates or referring to “Caitlyn” Jenner by female pronouns are acts of lying. And many Trump voters believe allowing biological men—also known as men—to compete in women’s sports is manifestly—or womanifestly—unjust.

Heffernan is right on one point, though. Absolution isn’t hers to give, and Trump voters owe her nothing. If attempts to “make amends” and to work for “justice”—as defined by leftists—are “unity” prerequisites, then there will be no unity in America. But we already knew that.

After comparing Trump voters to Hezbollah, Louis Farrakhan, and Nazi collaborator Philippe Pétain, Heffernan said this:

What do we do about the Trumpites around us? … Americans are expected to forgive and forget before we’ve even stitched up our wounds. Or gotten our vaccines against the pandemic that former President Trump utterly failed to mitigate.

My neighbors supported a man who showed near-murderous contempt for the majority of Americans.

Are the 74 million Trump voters expected to forgive and forget the leftists who showed near murderous contempt for all the Americans who lived in terror as their cities and businesses were burned and looted, and police officers spit at and beaten?

Are Trump voters expected to forgive and forget before they’ve even stitched their lives back together?

Are Trump voters expected to forgive and forget the shabby way President Trump and Melania Trump were treated by the bigoted, partisan press since the moment President Trump was elected?

Are Trump voters expected to forgive and forget the millions of tax dollars spent on the Russian collusion hoax and two impeachment trials—including the one that Chief Justice John Roberts refuses to preside over?

Are Trump voters expected to forgive and forget the way Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh was treated by Democrats?

Are Trump voters expected to forgive and forget the way the press covered for the corrupt Joe Biden during his invisible campaign?

Are Trump voters expected to forgive and forget that leftists have given Trump little to no credit for Operation Warp Speed?

Apparently, leftists have little understanding that Trump voters view the beliefs of leftists—particularly on matters pertaining to sexuality and marriage—as evil and destructive as leftists view conservative beliefs.

Leftists that control Big Tech, big business, our professional medical and mental health organizations, public schools, secondary schools, the mainstream press, and the “arts,” do not support diversity of ideas. They do not value tolerance for beliefs they hate. They do not love liberty for deplorables, ugly folks, and theologically orthodox Christians.

And despite all their prior opposition to “imposing morality,” leftists are now firmly committed to imposing their morality—including on other people’s children using taxpayer money.

The beauty of America used to be that, recognizing the diversity of ideas and beliefs, Americans were committed to allowing the free flow of ideas and robust debate. The notion that a ruling class could declare that their presuppositions would enjoy unencumbered public expression and that all dissenting views would be banned was unthinkable.

It was this freedom that made America a refuge for oppressed people around the world, and as leftists deracinate this freedom, America becomes an oppressive place to live for millions of Americans. Increasingly, the only freedom valued by those who rule America is the freedom for unrestrained sexual deviance to destroy hearts, minds, bodies, souls, families, churches, and the First Amendment.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

Please support the work of Illinois Family Institute. 

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

Written by Peter Heck

Netflix, after facing intense public backlash for airing the provocative film “Cuties,” which many saw as sexualizing children, is now facing criminal charges in the state of Texas.

State Representative Matt Schaefer (R-TX) made public a grand jury indictment that has been filed in Tyler County, alleging Netflix is guilty of promoting “lewd visual material depicting a child.”

Netflix, Inc. indicted by grand jury in Tyler Co., Tx for promoting material in Cuties film which depicts lewd exhibition of pubic area of a clothed or partially clothed child who was younger than 18 yrs of age which appeals to the prurient interest in sex #Cuties #txlege pic.twitter.com/UJ1hY8XJ2l

— Matt Schaefer (@RepMattSchaefer) October 6, 2020

According to the indictment, Netflix “knowingly” promoted “visual material which depicts…the genitals or pubic area of a clothed or partially clothed child who was younger than 18 years of age at the time the visual material was created.”

Concurrent with Texas action, multiple lawmakers of both parties in Washington, D.C., called on the Justice Department to criminally investigate Netflix for the same offense of dabbling in the promotion of child pornography.

Additionally, there has been fear among those who work to rescue sex trafficked children that “Cuties” depicts the grooming behavior consistent with child predation.

“We’ve had 245 recoveries,” Joseph Travers, the founder of the child rescue organization Saved in America, told Breitbart News Daily, “meaning we have 245 case studies and one of the things we found out [is that there are] five steps of a predator’s grooming of children for child sex trafficking. … Out of the five steps, four of the steps are right in that Netflix film on how to groom a child for trafficking.”

Netflix has continued to defend itself throughout the ordeal, claiming the film was meant to show “the pressure young girls face on social media and from society more generally growing up.”

This article was originally published at Disrn.com.

Written by Rhonda Graff

There is another important U.S. Senate Bill that needs your attention. This proposal ( S. 3398) is sponsored by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and is supported by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE). Introduced on March 5th, it is now pending before the Judiciary Committee, and expected to be “marked up” by the Committee on Thursday, July 2.

The Earn It Act  (Eliminating Abusive & Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act) makes the Internet’s immunity from liability to be considered “CONDITIONAL” on complying with best business practices to:

a) Prevent online sexual exploitation including enticement, recruiting, grooming, and sex trafficking; and

b) Prevent and reduce the proliferation of child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

This bill revises the framework governing the prevention of online sexual exploitation of children.

The Earn It Act creates a new National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention, charged with enforcing accountability on interactive digital platforms. This will be flexible in the face of fast-changing technology and online risks that often emerge overnight… a reality no legislative body is nimble enough to track or oversee.

The Earn It Act directs the commission to develop best practices for interactive online service providers (i.e. Facebook and Twitter) to prevent the online sexual exploitation of children. It requires online service providers to certify compliance with the best practices or else they lose liability protections from claims alleging violations of child sexual exploitation laws. Lastly, the Earn It Act replaces statutory references to child pornography with child sexual abuse material.

This legislation has bipartisan support, and is co-sponsored by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Joni Ernst (R-IA), John Kennedy (R-LA), Doug Jones (D-AL), Bob Casey (D-PA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

Over 75 credible organizations have endorsed it including NCOSE, the National Center for Missing and Exploited, Shared Hope International. But Big Tech lobbyists are working overtime to defeat it. 

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth to ask her to co-sponsor the Earn It Act. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin is already a co-sponsor.

Additional talking points in support of the Earn It Act can be found at this link.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

We Have Slavery in our Midst – Here’s What You Can Do to Help End It

The following are all true stories. No names have been changed:

• Edie was four when her father died. When Bill moved in, she thought he would be her new Daddy. Instead, he started molesting when she was ten. Bill and her mother owned a butcher shop, and when she was twelve, he started selling her for sex out of the store. On any given day, she might be getting raped in a cooler in the back while customers were buying their dinner out front. If anyone ever noticed the signs of what was happening to her, they never took action.

• Lexie grew up in church. She was coerced into sex at age ten by a seventeen-year-old boy who was a friend of her uncle’s. With divorced parents and a distant father, she craved love and affection. She thought he loved her and that she was his girlfriend. He and her uncle then started selling her for sex to their high school friends at a neighbor’s house. She told her parents what was happening, but they didn’t believe her. She also told her youth pastor, but nothing came out of that either. Her situation continued until the two boys moved on. No one helped her.

• Brook was badly raped at age eleven. She and a friend, who had also been raped, ran away. Before long, they ended up dirty, disheveled, and hungry in a public area. A kindly, clean-cut couple approached them, bought them a meal, and then offered to take them back to their apartment for clean clothes. “We want to help you,” they said. The girls went with them, and before the night was over, Brook had been beaten, threatened, and taken out onto the street as a prostitute.

These are not outlying scenarios. This is the new face of human trafficking – also called modern slavery – in America. It’s happening in our cities, in our suburbs, and even in our schools during lunch and after school hours. And the children involved are getting younger and younger. Sometimes they’re physically held against their will (as in literal chains). Other times they are coerced under threat of harm to themselves or to someone they love. Lexie’s handlers, for example, told her if she didn’t cooperate, they would have her six-year-old sister take her place.

Often the trafficker is known to the child, as in the case of Edie and Lexie. Other times, it’s a predator who knows how to spot a vulnerable target and lure her into his net, the way Brook and her friend were easily eyed and ensnared. Social media has become a veritable hunting ground for children, as grown men posing as “friends” are continually casting for relationships with them online, gradually gaining trust until an opportunity arises to make a move. Another means of entry is the offer of a modeling or acting contract. (Believe it or not, adults fall for this on behalf of their children.) Boys are trafficked too. Studies vary, but estimates say 10-15 percent of trafficked children are boys. And as you can see, women can be complicit or actively involved as perpetrators.

Note also that these things are happening in America, not just “somewhere else.” In 2016, the U.S. led the world as a consumer of commercial sex. Massage parlors, dance clubs, and large-scale gatherings, such as major sporting events or conventions, are supply and demand breeding grounds, and it’s important to know that women of adult age working in legal sex establishments may not be there of their own volition. Some have been trafficked in and are being held under coercion or threat, and of those who weren’t, many still feel trapped because they see no way out. For those whose eyes have been trained to see it, America has become a nation of distributed red-light districts.

Geoffrey Rogers saw it, and in 2011, he left an executive position at IBM to take it on. Together with former major league baseball manager Kevin Malone, he co-founded the U.S. Institute Against Human Trafficking. He is also president of Ships of Tarshish Films, and Edie’s, Lexie’s, and Brooke’s stories are told in his film, Blind Eyes Opened: The Truth about Sex Trafficking in America. As the title implies, part of its purpose is to help us learn to see the signs of trafficking. That alone makes it important viewing, but it goes well beyond that. Six years in the making, Blind Eyes Opened is packed with information: preventive measures we all can take, what to do in the event we suspect someone is being trafficked, and how we in churches and communities can minister to those who’ve been entangled in this web, past or present.

Although the subject matter is difficult, it’s a beautiful and hopeful film – a full-throated call to the church to engage in this spiritual battle, minister to the wounded, and put an end to this evil in our midst. Blind Eyes Opened will be showing in theaters, one night only, on January 23^rd. Click here to see the trailer, or here for theaters and showtimes. If you can’t make a showing, click here to learn more about how you can join this fight.

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

-and, please-

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington D.C. has a special holiday treat for the kiddies this year: My Fair Lady. Austin Ruse, President of the Center for Family & Human Rights, and his wife Cathy Ruse, Senior Fellow for Legal Studies at the Family Research Council, took their 14- and 11-year-old daughters to see it, and here is an excerpt from his review  published in the Washington Examiner:

Act 2, Scene 4: Alfred P. Doolittle is about to get married. … And what do we see …? Men dressed as can-can dancers singing and dancing to Alfred P. Doolittle’s joyous swansong Get Me to the Church on Time. It appeared that Drag Queen Story Hour had come to the Kennedy Center. …

[W]e were not prepared for the act to devolve into a staged orgy with simulated sex acts performed by and on a man dressed as a garish bride, the focal point of the choreography.

At one point, the “bride,” whose low-cut wedding dress repeatedly falls down to expose “breasts,” jumps on the top of a piano and leans back while another man exaggeratedly fondles his “breasts.” Then the “bride” spreads his legs in the air while another man pumps his face into the “bride’s” crotch, quite obviously simulating oral sex. This in front of my daughters and every other child unlucky enough to be there.

But there is more. The “bride” jumps down, dances across the stage, and bends over while Alfred P. Doolittle lifts his dress and simulates sex “doggy-style” for the gentle audience.

At the end of his number, there was rousing applause.

Nothing like simulated oral sex between a cross-dressing man and another man to celebrate the holidays.

Before the perverse, anti-family creepers got their grimy mitts on it, My Fair Lady was a family-friendly affair, but every inch of the public square must be sullied before the deviant among us are sated.

The inclusion of scenes of sexuality in plays that historically might have only alluded to sexuality is not new. Ten years ago, Chicago Shakespeare Theatre’s production of Macbeth included these scenes:

• Just after Lady Macbeth has read the letter from Macbeth in which he describes the witches’ prophecy, the actress playing Lady Macbeth removed her top and performed topless. When Macbeth arrived home, she mounted him and they simulated sex while the actor playing Macbeth fondled the actress’ bare breasts.
• After Macbeth becomes undone by the vision of Banquo’s bloody head, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth retreated to their bedchambers where she knelt down in front of Macbeth and simulated an act of oral sex.
• Three scenes were set in a strip club. There was no nudity, but one of the witches wore a buttocks-baring thong and gyrated like a professional stripper.

Despite what “progressives” claim, objections to vulgarity like this do not constitute provincial philistinism, and the performances of actresses who perform nude or topless are not “brave” performances. Except for exhibitionists, it takes nerve to exhibit publicly those parts of the human anatomy that are sexual or excretory in nature, but the nerve needed to entertain a theater audience through nudity is different from the bravery needed to risk suffering or death in the service of a noble cause.

The actress, Karen Aldridge, was degraded and objectified. Her exhibition of her body and her willingness to be publicly fondled was disgraceful and distracting. It added nothing of value to our understanding of Macbeth and pulled audience attention out of the story.

If it is brave and justifiable to publicly exhibit and exploit one’s body, then we should stop telling our children that the parts of their anatomy that are inherently sexual are “private parts.”

For an actress to be willing to bare her breasts in front of hundreds of strangers night after night and allow a man who is not her husband to fondle them suggests a heretical Gnostic view of the human person—a view that separates the physical body from the internal “spiritual” self. This is a troubling and false dualistic view of the human person, which denies the reality that our physical, material bodies are inseparable from our immaterial spiritual selves and are sacred.

Despite what many within our “artistic” communities may claim, “art,” or rather some contemporary misconception of art, is not an ultimate value. It does not transcend or supersede the objective truth that our naked bodies are not for public display or public consumption.

As with the Ruse family, no warning was provided to my family that the production was R-rated. Clearly, the artistic staff at Chicago Shakespeare was not concerned about offending audience members, including those who brought their middle or high school-age children to the play as my husband and I did. Nor did they seem to consider the possibility that there may be people who struggle with an all too common, family-destroying porn addiction and consciously avoid graphic sexual imagery.

After IFI posted a short warning about the play, we received this email from a woman who objected to my objections:

Your evaluation of Macbeth made me chuckle. I am going to see the production tonight. My daughter, who works at the theatre, has seen it and was quite impressed with the production. I will reserve my comments to you until after I have seen it. However, I must be upfront and tell you I have little, if any, respect for your organization, so, naturally, your opinion is of no importance. However, I did want to share with you this funny (sad?) anecdote. One parent that came into the theatre worried about the sexual overtones of the show was quite accepting of the violence. No problem there! We can maim people, carry guns, annihilate anyone with whom we disagree, but show people having sex???? Blasphemy!! What a mixed-up set of values …

I’m not sure she knew what an “overtone” is. An overtone is “a subtle or elusive quality or implication.” There was nothing remotely subtle in the sexuality depicted in the Macbeth production. If the sexuality had been subtle, elusive, or implied, I wouldn’t have objected.

Her comparison of depictions of violence to actual nudity is flawed. Even a comparison of depictions of violence to depictions of sex acts is flawed. Many people, perhaps most, believe that sexual acts (and excretory acts) though perfectly normal are intimate, private acts that are not for public consumption. Violence is quite different. While violent acts are always unpleasant and often abhorrent or repugnant—even when necessary and justifiable—they are not thought of as intrinsically private, intimate acts.

Violent acts may be moral or immoral depending on the context, just as sexual acts may be moral or immoral depending on the context. But sexual acts are always intended to be private acts. And for many, actual nudity is appropriate in only very limited contexts. Opposition to seeing such displays of nudity does not grow out of prudery. Rather, such opposition grows out of a profound respect for the human body and a recognition of its inextricable connection to our spiritual natures.

Nudity, actual erotic acts (e.g., fondling breasts), simulated erotic and sexual acts (e.g., oral “sex” and intercourse), and perversion (e.g., drag queens telling stories to and twerking with toddlers in public libraries) are not new in the “arts” and entertainment world. The perverse, pagan, and hedonistic elites who control our culturally essential storytelling mechanisms have slowly, incrementally pushed decency out to make space for indecency. What still shocks is the brazenness and glee with which elites now introduce perversion to children, calling such exposure “education” and “inclusivity.” They include indecent ideas and images—not to condemn them through art—but to celebrate them—as all pagan societies have done and do. Make no mistake: They want the hearts, minds, and bodies of your children. Storytelling is one of the most effective means by which to capture first hearts, then minds, and finally bodies.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre 
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Holiday-Depravity-and-Arrogance-from-Theater-Community_audio.mp3

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

Written by Worth Loving