Good News: Target Beginning To Pay For Promoting Insane Transgender Toilet Policy

When you want to do something stupid, you will pay a price.

Here’s to hoping Target keep on paying and change their foolish policies back to ones that actually protect employees and customers instead of encouraging perverts, molesters, and rapists to access women and children.

Read it and smile:

After more than 1.1 million people pledged to boycott Target, celebrities and corporations alike are having second thoughts about crossing Americans on such a consensus issue. The decision by the retail giant is not only sparking massive backlash, but it’s helping the country get a real picture of the controversy in North Carolina. It’s also shown liberals that without the big media’s cover, twisting the facts of the law, they’re all by themselves. There’s even more evidence of that this week, as more singers are keeping their concert dates in North Carolina than canceling them. Even more telling, not one business has threatened to leave the state after seeing what happened to the retail giant — which has taken a $2.5 billion hit since letting grown men in women’s restrooms and dressing rooms. After executives announced the change, shares dropped 6 percent in just 10 days.

And the rest of the market is taking note. Rockers Cyndi Lauper and Mumford and Sons refused to cancel their stop in the Tar Heel State, and instead promised to donate the proceeds to LGBT organizations. This is what happens when you stand up to bullies! They leave. And the same thing would have eventually happened in Indiana, Georgia, and South Dakota if those governors would have had the courage to stand up for religious freedom. Most country stars, meanwhile, never abandoned fans in the first place. One of the biggest names on the scene, Florida Georgia Line, never hesitated. “We love North Carolina and our fans there, so we’re gonna play. We are going to be there for sure. For sure.” Scott McCreery, Cam, and Chris Land didn’t blink either. “I think there are bigger things in the world to be thinking about,” Chris Jansen told reporters. “So I think you can kind of get where I lean on that subject, right? You have to perform for the fans.”

For Target, the bad news keeps piling up. Employees are going public with their concerns — not just about the company’s agenda, but about their job security. If the financial losses keep up, “I’m worried that it will cost jobs. I’m wondering if they care about families or they care about families of team members that lose their jobs,” one said. Even more problematic, the clash is dragging down Target’s image. The negative feedback is already damaging the company’s brand, Forbes warns. “The number of people who said they would consider shopping at Target the next time they needed something from a department store dropped from 42% to 38%, as measured by the YouGov BrandIndex.” And that’s just in a week and a half!

Making matters worse, a woman’s video chasing a stalker out of the underwear section of a Florida Target store is going viral. As most Americans know, these incidents are only going to increase, as shoppers find more men in restrooms and changing rooms. Of course, as AFA’s Tim Wildmon points out in USA Today, “There is a simple solution to this controversy for Target. Gender-specific facilities (men’s bathrooms/fitting rooms, women’s bathrooms/fitting rooms) would be maintained, and a single-occupancy, unisex option would be provided for the transgendered community.” Clearly, Target is more interested in making a political point. And now they’re paying for it.

Who knows how many innocent victims will also pay? That’s the sobering question Kaeley Triller asks in a compelling piece for The Federalist. She’s a rape survivor who says her “heart starts to race” just reading about these reports. “They can’t be serious. Let me be clear: I am not saying that transgender people are predators. Not by a long shot. What I am saying is that there are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit, namely women and children. It already happens. Just Google Jason Pomares, Norwood Smith Burnes, or Taylor Buehler, for starters… Do these companies know,” she asks, that more than 99 percent of single-victim incidents are committed by males? That they are experts in rationalization who minimize their number of victims? Don’t they know that insurance companies highlight locker rooms as a high-risk area for abuse that should be carefully monitored and protected? Don’t they know that one out of every four little girls will be sexually abused during childhood, and that’s without giving predators free access to them while they shower?”

As a mom, she says, what about her rights? “What of my right to do my darndest to insist that the first time my daughter sees the adult male form it will be because she’s chosen it, not because it’s forced upon her? What of ouremotional and physical rights?” All too often, they take a backseat to the radical ideology of the Left. Read why in Peter Sprigg’s new piece for the Tulsa World.

http://barbwire.com/2016/05/06/stock-awe-shoppers-dump-shares-target-blitz/

Leftist Governments Will Force Their Way Into Your Family And They Will Target Your Children To Do It

Here is the terrifying totalitarian future that Scotland is cooking up for families.

WHAT IS IT?

The Scottish Parliament has passed legislation to appoint a ‘Named Person’ for every child in Scotland.

This is a state official tasked with looking after a child’s “wellbeing”, that is, their “happiness”. This state guardian will be put in place regardless of whether or not children or parents wish to have one and regardless of whether there is any need for state intervention.

Confusingly, there are already Named Person pilot schemes in operation across Scotland, but the legislation does not actually come into force until August 2016.

WHAT WILL A ‘NAMED PERSON’ DO?

Named Persons are given some of the duties of parents. A Government-funded leaflet said this includes having to check if children get a say in how their room is decorated and what they watch on TV.

A Named Person will have the power to speak to a child, including about very personal issues, and provide information or advice – all without requiring parental consent.

TEN REASONS WHY THIS IS A PROBLEM

  1. It undermines parents and permits the state unlimited access to pry into the privacy of families in their homes.
  2. The Government keeps saying there’s no need for families to use the Named Person but this is disingenuous. The scheme is compulsory. Every child will have a Named Person by law. They will have power to access confidential data on the family, and to talk to a child without their parents agreeing with what they say.
  3. It’s already extremely difficult to protect vulnerable children with the resources available. The Scottish Government is stretching those resources even further by creating a scheme that applies to all children regardless of need.
  4. Appointing a Named Person with legal responsibilities for every child will divert resources away from vulnerable children. Time spent filling in forms for dozens of children at no risk is time that could be better spent on those children in need of help.
  5. One piece of Government guidance says a Named Person has “responsibility for overall monitoring of the child’s wellbeing and outcomes”. This is the role of a parent.
  6. Because of the pressure on them, Named Persons will be forced to act defensively, reporting trivial or irrelevant family issues to social services. This creates more work for social workers who will have to needlessly follow up these families, cheating vulnerable children of the resources that they need.
  7. The Named Person is legally responsible for monitoring the wellbeing of every child. Official guidance says “wellbeing is another word for happiness”. How can the state monitor the happiness of every child?
  8. Teachers are busy enough without becoming a Named Person responsible for monitoring hundreds of children and handling the large amounts of confidential data sent to them by all the other agencies involved in the child’s life.
  9. These plans could result in children having their privacy invaded over personal issues and could lead to them shunning helplines and advisory services.
  10. The current law says social services can intervene where a child is at risk of significant harm. But Named Persons can intervene merely where there are concerns about a child’s “wellbeing” or “happiness”.

Consider the following commentary for further insight into just how terrifyingly bad this actually is:

http://no2np.org/named-person/

“Safe Sex” Is Only Found In The Context Of Marriage, Anthing Else Is A Cheap Knockoff

When people talk about “safe sex”, they mostly mean “sex that allows me to avoid any responsibilities that are too taxing for my self-absorbed, convenience-centred life.”

Funny how that kind of “safe sex” often doesn’t make for the safest environment for children or for anyone else really.

Here’s the wisdom on saving sex for marriage, or what I like to call “authentic safe sex”:

God only permits sex inside marriage. But why? Western culture largely doesn’t see a problem with premarital sex anymore. And if the couple consent, what’s the problem? J.B. from the U.S. writes:

I have been asked something that had me quite stumped. Someone was questioning why God does not allow people to have sex outside of marriage, claiming there is no good reason. I am not talking about homosexuality or anything like that, but like a man and woman having sex when they are not married. I saw one article that briefly touches around the subject, but my question is how should I answer this to an atheist?

CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:

God forbids sex outside of marriage because outside of marriage there’s no public agreement in place stipulating that each party of the sexual relationship must care for one another and any children that might come from the sexual union. Sexual desire is an incredibly potent force, and sexual activity has massive implications—procreation being the most obvious (Genesis 1:28), but it also binds a man and woman together in a way that nothing else can (Genesis 2:24–25)—the two texts Jesus himself explained marriage from: Christ the Creationist. By forbidding sex outside of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:2) God is saying that we must publically acknowledge that we have a duty of care to our sexual partner before we get to have sex. Think about it; marriage constitutes a public agreement to care for any potential children from a sexual union, so it provides a level of accountability to parents for looking after their own children. Marriage thus provides a first line of defense against child abuse and neglect (Raising godly children). If sex is OK outside of marriage, nor do we have a publically acknowledged duty of care to the person we have sex with. As such, marriage is a first line of defense against sexual abuse.

By forbidding sex outside of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:2) God is saying that you must publically acknowledge that you have a duty of care to your sexual partner before you get to have sex.

Of course, we all know that child abuse and sexual abuse can occur within marriages. But this doesn’t happen because marriage itself is faulty; it happens because humans are slaves to sin (Ephesians 2:1–3). Is the idea of a car stupid just because my car is a lemon? Of course not! But if sex is OK outside of marriage, then sex and children happen outside of contexts where people have voluntarily acknowledged their duty of care to their sexual partner and their children. Does circumventing that public accountability bode well for lessening sexual abuse and child abuse? Of course not! And so it’s no surprise to learn that child abuse and sexual abuse (of both children and adults) are proportionately more common outside of marriage than within it.

But, people in our society today think sex outside of marriage is OK because we have decoupled sex from a duty of care for our sexual partner. Sex is now a game people play, not an expression of love people share. But if sex is a game people play, then why shouldn’t they be able to make money from playing it? After all, baseball, football, and basketball players make obscene amounts of money just for playing a game, and sex is in many ways more entertaining than any of those, so why can’t people make money from ‘playing’ sex? And if sex is a game, why can’t we change the rules as we feel like, and legitimize all sorts of sexual expressions? And if sex is a game, what’s the point of marriage? Why not redefine marriage to reflect socially acceptable sexual proclivities? And what do we see in the Western world? Homosexuality is now just a ‘sexual preference’, prostitution is legal in many places, and same-sex marriage is sweeping the Western world.

The original design of sex was ingenious—God made the most pleasurable human experience the means by which new life is generated.

But notice in all this how children, as products of sexual unions, have been forgotten. Why? Western culture has (largely) managed to decouple sex from procreation. The original design of sex was ingenious—God made the most pleasurable human experience the means by which new life is generated; it puts an enormous responsibility on those engaging in sexual activity. But of course, the general availability of birth control has largely taken the fear of pregnancy away, so it makes it easy to treat sex like a game.

But even without the threat of pregnancy, promiscuity still has a major consequence—STDs (see Does it matter? for more information). STDs are clearly more prevalent in promiscuous societies. As such, even STDs are a reason to limit oneself to only one sexual partner at most, since then most STDs wouldn’t have a means of being transmitted. And health risks are included in any acknowledged duty of care to a sexual partner and children, so marriage again provides a means of curtailing STDs by binding a person to one sexual partner.

“But sex can still be an expression of love outside of marriage, right?” No. It can be an expression of infatuation, or romance, but not love in the biblical sense of actively putting another’s needs above oneself. “Oh, but I’m a generous lover!” In bed, maybe, but what about the rest of the day? The duty of care God says sex binds us to is not simply our partner’s sexual needs, but all their needs. Food, clothing, shelter, emotional well-being, spiritual well-being—all of it. When we view sex as an expression of that sort of love, then it’s plain that anything less than sex inside marriage cheapens the value of sex. If we are not willing to be so bound to someone that all their needs are largely dependent on us, then we shouldn’t be having sex. And if we are so willing, then we should make the public profession to such willingness (with our partner, of course; it takes two to marry!) before having sex so that everyone else can hold us accountable. For more information, please see Family/Marriage questions and answers.

http://creation.com/premarital-sex

Homosexuality And Paedophilia Go Hand In Hand: That’s Why The LGBT Lobby Target Kindergarteners With Their “Sex Education”

It’s funny how a film like Spotlight wins the Academy Award for best film alongside significant investigations, even a royal commission, into child sex abuse in the Catholic Church and nobody mentions the fact that a whole lot of the people sexually molesting children are homosexuals, as though a paedophiles preference for boy children is not homosexual in nature.

What, is it somehow “gender neutral” when an old man molests young boys?

Time to wake up people – that’s called homosexual paedophilia.

And guess what? Many paedophiles turn out to be homosexual paedophiles.

So let’s cut through the LGBT lies and acknowledge the strong link between homosexuality and paedophilia. 

Let’s also take a look at the insatiable interest homosexuals have in everybody else’s children, care of Bill Muehlenberg:

Hot on the heels of the annual parade of sleaze and perversion in Sydney tonight, attended for the first time ever by our Prime Minister, as well as Opposition Leader, and with police and other groups in attendance, we have even more sexual evil polluting our land.

And when this sexual perversion specifically targets our children, even toddlers, then you know that diabolical evil is now running amok in this country. As a parent it makes my blood boil to hear about this moral madness and sexual insanity.

Consider this article about what the sexperts and social revolutionaries at the Early Childhood Australia are up to as they target our children:

Toddlers will be taught about sex, sexuality and cross-dressing in a controversial national program being rolled out at childcare centres and kindergartens next month.

Educators will be encouraged to use dress-ups to explain cross-dressing to kids and may even take group tours of the opposite sex’s toilets as part of the Start Early initiative.

Teachers will use material provided by Early Childhood Australia, and books such as the book Children’s Sexual Development and Behaviour: Pants Aren’t Rude, by Pam Linke.

Suggestions in the book include teaching about sexuality in a positive way as a healthy part of life, ensuring children aren’t forced to kiss anyone they don’t want to and letting children know that “all parts of their body are good”.

Early Childhood Australia spokeswoman Clare McHugh said the program would reduce domestic violence because “rigid views on gender” were associated with violence and domestic violence.

“Children are sexual beings and it’s a strong part of their identity, and it is linked to their values and respect,” she said.

It comes after the federal government ordered a review of a Safe Schools program for secondary students including lessons on how to bind breasts and tuck in male genitalia.

Ms McHugh said the program was designed to “use everyday moments and interactions” to teach respect, ability and making choices.

“The underlying message is to value difference and be open to difference,” she said.

Dr Anne Kennedy, chairperson of Community Childcare Victoria, said there would be a “wide take-up” in Victoria.

She said the material would be handled sensitively and parents would be consulted.

“Educators deal with these issues all the time and the resources help them do better in the way they respond — in a developmentally and culturally responsible way,” she said.

If even half of this is true it is utterly reprehensible. I have news for these despicable social activists: keep your grubby hands off our children. Children aged 1 to 3 are not sexual dynamos who walk, talk and breathe sexuality. They don’t even know what the lousy word means, and have no need to be sexualised and robbed of their childhood and innocence.

As one expert, Dr. Robert McDonald, a retired psychotherapist and medical doctor, said about a similar program in Canada: “Any action which sexualizes a child before he or she is ready is sexual abuse. Therefore so-called sex-ed for children before puberty is an act of sexual abuse.”

Talk about targeting our most vulnerable and defenceless members of society: these sexual engineers should be locked up for deliberate child abuse. There is no other way to describe this sick perversion. It is bad enough when they seek to corrupt adults, but when they target toddlers then that is certainly enough.

The only good news here about this disturbing story is the comments which are flowing fast and furiously under this article. And boy are they ever ticked off – and rightly so. Here are just a few of them:

-Madness. Utter madness. Stop using our schools as platforms for social engineering.

-Absolutely disgraceful and from the pits of hell. Demonically inspired, with one purpose, to destroy the innocence of young children. Pathetic AND it must be stopped.

-More leftist social engineering from a spineless union controlled, government.

-I have re-read the article and I am gobsmacked. It is disgraceful and goes against EVERY single thing to help raise a happy and well-adjusted child, who will then grow up to be a good and contributing member of society. Look at the key words, respect, value difference, culturally responsible, rigid views on gender and sexuality. Four year olds. Who are these women trying to kid?

-Utterly, utterly ridiculous. This is simply a lawsuit waiting to happen. Leave our kids alone.

-Did this lunatic really say “children are sexual beings!!” Sorry Ms (of course she is a “Ms”) McHugh, it’s not “rigid views” which is causing a rise in domestic violence. It’s a generation of boys being raised by people like her, with no strong male models (Ms McHugh enemies), having their minds poisoned with evil nonsense like this. This is madness. No way will my little girls be exposed to this sort of indoctrination, and woe behold any educational institution that will try it!

-A new more subtle form of child abuse. This time parents should shout out we are as mad as hell and not going to put up with it any more .Leave our children alone. No more tolerating so called experts experimenting and trying to socially engineer our children.

-This is outrageous. Any child under The age of 15 does not need this rubbish forced down their throats. If my local child care centre tries to teach my child this, I’ll make sure he’s away on those days.

-PC is dead, There will be a backlash. A minority cannot simply keep on imposing their stupid ideas and expect the majority will just roll over and accept this garbage.

-A predictable outcome from a society that rejects God and embraces humanism. The moral weakening of a society will be its downfall as has been demonstrated time and again throughout history. Nevertheless truth and justice will prevail in the end.

-Rational atheists finds this sort of social engineering to be absurd, too. Research with both young primates and very young children (even new born babies), consistently shows strong correlations between males favouring toys with spatial stimulus (cars, blocks, gadgets, etc), while females favour dolls. Gender differences is not because of social constructs, as regressive leftist try to portray, but due to biology!

These men and women are thoroughly outraged. And I am so glad they are. There is hope yet for this nation when concerned parents and others speak out loud and clear about this horrific abuse of our children. I am absolutely sick and tired of it. I hope all who read this are too.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/toddlers-to-be-taught-about-crossdressing-in-controversial-sex-ed-program/news-story/7b935bb2e1573c1b2e748755d0f18986

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/psychiatrists-wynnes-early-sex-ed-program-is-sexual-abuse

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/toddlers-to-be-taught-about-crossdressing-in-controversial-sex-ed-program/news-story/7b935bb2e1573c1b2e748755d0f18986#load-story-comments

Islamic Terror In Russian Homes: Muslim Nanny Beheads 4 Year Old Girl Because “Allah Ordered Me”

Lock up your daughters because apparently they aren’t safe from Muslim nannies.

So I hope that this awful event is a wake up call that Islam is no discriminator when it comes to infecting the minds of people of all ages, sexes, and careers (Islam is of course a discriminator against essentially all people).

Now, even your own homes is no longer safe.

In particular, I find it amusing that the nanny declares herlsef to be a terrorist and yet the authorities refuse to treat her beheading a four year old child as terrorism.

Must be some semantics issue or something.

Here’s the story:

‘Allah Ordered Me’ to Behead 4-Year-Old Girl, Muslim Nanny Says

Gulchekhra Bobokulova, a nanny form Uzbekistan, is accused of beheading a child in Moscow on February 29, 2016.

A Muslim nanny from Uzbekistan who earlier this week beheaded a 4-year-old girl in Moscow has said that “Allah ordered” her to commit the murder.

BBC News reported that 38-year-old mother of three Gulchekhra Bobokulova admitted her guilt before reporters on the way to a Moscow court, though she is also being evaluated for mental problems. 

Bobokulova is suspected of waiting until the parents of the little girl left their flat in the Russian capital before she killed and then beheaded the young child. Video footage later depicted the nanny walking around a metro station with the severed head in her hands, before shewas arrested by police.

Footage also showed the woman shouting phrases like “Allahu Akbar” (God is great) and “I am a terrorist.” She later told reporters she was “ordered by Allah” to carry out the crime.

Other things she was apparently heard saying included “I hate democracy. I’m a terrorist. I’m your suicide bomber. … I’m going to die in a second” and “The end of the world is coming in a second. … I’m your death,” teleSUR reported.

Police have said that the woman also threatened to blow herself up after they asked her for identity documents.

Russian investigators are searching to see if anyone else was involved in the crime, but so far they are not treating it as a terrorism case.

Prosecutors said they believe Bobokulova had been “incited” to commit the crime, but did not say by who.

The woman had been working for the parents of the little girl for 18 months, and though she had a valid residency permit for Russia, she had no work permit.

Russian journalist Polina Nikolskaya, who witnessed the scene, told Reuters:

“I was on my way to the metro station from home. She was standing near the metro entrance and caught my attention because she was screaming Allahu Akbar. I saw that she had a bloodied head in her arms but I thought it was not real. People in the crowd said it was real.”

Other reports in local media have said that the nanny was under the influence of unidentified drugs when she was walking the streets and yelling with the severed head.

Moscow residents have meanwhile been leaving toys and flowers at the Oktyabrskoye Polye metro station in honor of the girl, as well as outside the flat where she was murdered.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/allah-ordered-me-to-behead-4-year-old-girl-muslim-nanny-russia-158867/

The Homosexual And Transgender Proselytisation Of Children Through The Education System And The Media

Teaching children anything is only okay these days if it lines up with Leftist (ie Marxist, Progressive, etc) ideology (ie religion).

These days, teaching children that biological sex is a set reality (ie because it is) is wrong and harmful but teaching them that homosexuality is normal and that they can be any one of a trillion fabricated “genders” is perfectly fine.

The push to indoctrinate children and normalise dangerous and abnormal sexual practise at the earliest possible stages of life is a constant battle in the West and equally so in Australia.

In one case Play School, a popular children’s program airing on the ABC that most Australians will recall fondly, has decided that pushing their perverse homosexualisation agenda is important enough to warrant depicting homosexual “parents” in an upcoming episode.

In Australian schools, the Safe Schools program parades as an anti-bullying program that in reality seeks to reach children as young as primary school with homosexual and gender theory indoctrination.

Read the media release from Australian Christians about Play School below:

Parents should be able to trust their toddlers to the ABC’s Play School program without worrying if they are being exposed to controversial political and social agendas, according to the Australian Christian Lobby.

“Parents should not be forced to explain to little children how it is that two men come to have a baby,” ACL Managing Director Lyle Shelton said.

Play School yesterday announced it would feature two men raising a child in its popular Through the Windows segment.

“It is disappointing that the ABC is seeking to impose rainbow politics on toddlers when millions of their parents do not agree with redefining marriage in law.

“Millions of Australians also do not agree that two men should be allowed to deliberately deprive a child of its mother. This does not mean two men can not love a child, of course they can. The issue is whether or not it is right for the child to be deprived of its mother and whether this should be taught as ethical to toddlers.

“The ABC should also not assume that producing children through harvested eggs and a rented or donated woman’s womb to meet the desires of two men is a public good.

“Unsupervised watching of Play School was always considered safe by generations of parents. Now parents can’t be sure if their children are going to be exposed to contested social and political agendas.

“Play School is not the place for the ABC to run agendas. The Australian people will be deciding whether or not marriage (and with it parenting) is redefined in a national plebiscite after the federal election, should the Coalition win.

“Many parents will be disappointed with this, particularly as this is a taxpayer-funded program that should refrain from pushing confusing adult messaging to our children.

“Parent’s shouldn’t be forced to have adult conversations about sexuality and bioethics with their kids at such a young age and it certainly should not be the government broadcaster raising the subject with them.”

Mr Shelton said the nature of the ABC as a taxpayer-funded broadcaster meant that it should maintain its objectivity on political issues, particularly when matters crucial to the definition of marriage and family are subject to a national vote.

“ABC Kids in particular should be particularly sensitive to what it shows to young impressionable minds and refrain from introducing contested social concepts into their children’s programing,” Mr Shelton said.

“We encourage the Communications Minister, Mitch Fifield to take these concerns to the ABC so that the integrity of the ABC can be maintained.”

And Bill Muehlenberg’s piece about Safe Schools:

As our culture continues to spiral down the septic tank, eventually that produces a backlash. After a while decent people have had enough, and start to stand against the sleaze, degradation and corruption of our culture. And when our children are especially being targeted and abused by the sexual libertines and social revolutionaries, then the reaction really starts to kick in.

There have always been concerned parents who have resisted the moral decay and radical agendas of the coercive utopians, but as things get worse, more voices begin to be heard. In the past day or two I have found three cases of incensed Australian mothers speaking out, declaring ‘enough is enough’.

All three mums have had a gutful of the sexualisation of their kids, and want no more of it. All three have fearlessly and resolutely spoken out against this evil, and have gotten media attention for doing so. So let me focus on each of these three brave women, and hold them up as examples for you to emulate.

The first is a Melbourne mother who is sick of pro-homosexual and gender-bending propaganda being rammed down the throats of her children. One article on this opens as follows:

A website promoted by the Safe Schools Coalition is teaching students how to bind their breasts and “tuck in” male genitalia. The Minus 18 website, which is partially funded by the state government, gives step-by-step instructions on how to deal with “chest dysphoria” and includes seven different binding methods.

Mother of four Cella White withdrew her children from Frankston High over concerns about the Safe Schools Coalition program about transgender awareness. Ms White also expressed concerns about the website. “You are either born a boy or girl, I believe in mother nature, I want my kids to value their body, the breast binding is a real issue, we should be teaching kids to love themselves,” she said….

The government-funded program by the Safe Schools Coalition is designed to promote inclusiveness for ‘same sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse’ students, but critics say it is indoctrinating children in sexual identity politics under the pretence of a bullying program.

“It was announced in science class that boys could wear school dresses next year,” Ms White said. “They’re telling my children to call transgender children by their requested pronoun. What is the benefit to my son? He’s got a learning disability, he’s struggling with his times tables, he doesn’t need to deal with this.”

The mother of four was particularly concerned about any changes in bathroom policy that could see her daughter sharing a bathroom with a gender diverse student. “It could be a year 12 student of the opposite-born sex in the bathroom with my year 7 daughter who is blind,” Ms White said. “This isn’t about safe schools, it’s transgenderism and gay activism bought into the classroom. I know other parents who are not happy.”…

Ms White, who has complained to the education department and Safe Schools Coalition, said she is not religious but is coming forward to make other parents aware of “what their children are being taught. It’s being presented as an anti-bullying program but the education department said it’s a sexual diversity program,” she said. “Apart from this I love the school, I’m in mourning, I went there, my siblings went there, I told everyone how good they were.”

Another mother of four, this time from Perth, has also been battling this pernicious material for some time now. She was recently interviewed by the Australian but her comments did not make it into the newspaper article, so I asked Emily McKenna what she told the reporter. This is the gist of what she had said:

AllOfUs-700x366With progressive minded parents in our school advocating for the “Safe School Coalition” and my four-year-old starting kindy with two children from two separate same-sex lesbian households, I knew that it would be a matter of time before my children would be bullied for our family’s traditional marriage views.

The Safe Schools Coalition is being presented here in Western Australia by the AIDS Council. That information alone is alarming let alone the details taught in the “All of Us” booklet convincing children to force their bodies to stop growing as intended by nature.

Sharyn O’Neil, Director General at WA Education Department initially assured many prominent leaders here that the SSC would not go ahead in WA, however these minority groups don’t like no for an answer and in October 2015 the classroom diversity plan was rolled out into 7 senior schools and one primary school. This was a matter of three months after I had met with her about politicising our children in the classroom with relation to the climate change agenda. She assured me personally that it wouldn’t happen again.

After looking into our options as Christian parents, we have decided that our children’s future education would be best taught and overseen by us at home. We want our children to get back to learning their ABC’s and 123’s, and not be indoctrinated in all the latest politically correct sexuality!

Finally, a Queensland mother has gotten up in arms of the sexualisation of children as well. As a news item reports:

Nikita Friedman was so angered by what she believed was inappropriate clothing being sold for young girls by Big W she took to social media to voice her outrage. “Why on earth does my 1-year-old need to have shorts so short that her nappy is hanging out? Little girls are not sex objects. Gender bias is disgusting,” the Queensland mum wrote on the retail giant’s Facebook page. “I couldn’t find a single pair of shorts in the girl’s section today with an inseam of more than a couple of centimetres. Where is the variety and choice for parents looking to teach their children about sun safety and self respect? Not at Big W this month, that’s for sure!”

She also posted a photo comparing size one shorts for girls and boys, demonstrating the clear difference in length.

The post, which now appears to have been removed, received over 60,000 likes and 4,700 comments. Friedman edited her initial post to add that she believed it was important to let retailers know when customers are dissatisfied.

“The simple fact is that numbers talk and maybe seeing 1600 parents agree with my post after only 5 hours might make Big W stand up and listen for once to what parents want,’ she wrote just five hours after she published the popular post,” she wrote. The post attracted a lot of debate about whether the length of the shorts for boys and girls is an issue. Many parents jumped to support Friedman in the comments, with some congratulating her for taking a stand.

I am so glad that mothers are speaking out like this. They certainly should be. It is time to take a stand against all this sleaze, and the targeting of our children. We need many more concerned citizens to be raising their voices like this. If enough people speak out, things may begin to change.

Oh, and just one last question: when are we going to hear some fathers speaking out? Where are all the men? We need them to be a voice for our children as well.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/mother-pulls-children-from-frankston-high-school-over-transgender-awareness-rules/news-story/0b44bfe1ab5be79592261672051b5c60

http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/toddler/caring-for-toddler/mother-hits-out-at-big-w-for-sexualising-young-girls-20160209-gmp1p7.html#ixzz3ze1I3sDC

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/activists-push-taxpayerfunded-gay-manual-in-schools/news-story/4de614a88e38ab7b16601f07417c6219

This is the state of our culture, the only culture in history that has attempted to normalise sodomy and redefine the clear biological reality to different but complimentary sexes, imposing it upon the masses.
http://www.acl.org.au/2016/02/abc-should-keep-rainbow-politics-out-of-play-school/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=eNews%209%20February%202016&utm_content=eNews%209%20February%202016+CID_4f5001f84c3ed07716d0c21acddc692a&utm_source=CreateSend&utm_term=Read%20more

http://billmuehlenberg.com/2016/02/10/mothers-speaking-out/

Muslim Refugee In Germany Throws Children, Aged Seven, Five, And One, Out Of Two Story Window

Wonder why this one didn’t make the news, given that one time when everyone on earth repeatedly heard all about Michael Jackson dangling his kid over the balcony for a moment?

Or that one time anyone hurt their children?

I guess we’ll never know.

I couldn’t find any English-language news reports on this incident. However, an article at FOCUS.de is fairly clear in machine translation.

The asylum center is in Lohmar in Rhein-Sieg-Kreis. The 35-year-old Syrian father was arrested after his children were thrown from the windows of the center. Police suspect that he may have deliberately attempted to kill them.

Many thanks to Nash Montana for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for subtitling this news report from RT:

Transcript:

1:00 At the scene we found three injured children ages five, seven and one year.

1:04 The five- and the seven-year-old children are apparently severely injured

1:10 and have been transported to the trauma center. The one-year-old child

1:13 was injured only lightly and it was brought to the children’s clinic.

1:22 According to witnesses the two heavily-injured children fell

1:26 from two different windows. What happened with the third lightly-injured child

1:30 is at this point not clear yet.   

http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/02/syrian-refugee-allegedly-defenestrates-his-three-children-at-german-asylum-center/#more-38692

Obama Cries For Dead Children, Just Not The Ones Murdered By His Support For And Funding Of Abortion

When someone claims to care in any way about some social issue, you can always call their bluff based upon their attitude towards murdering children in the womb (euphemistically referred to as “abortion” so that these people can cover their hypocritical butts).

If someone supports the lazy and self-centred convenience of murdering children you don’t want while getting all the sex you do want, then you can know for certain that they actually don’t care about “social justice” but are really in the game of social change for some benefit to themselves.

Sure, they may not be getting briefcases full of cash but dangerous ideologues (like those who support murdering children) can benefit from pushing heir ideologies upon everyone in society. It is, after all, what the Nazis, the Communists, and the entire Islamic World have done to achieve their wonderful freedoms and social utopias.

This appropriately brings us to Obama and his heartfelt desire to prevent the relatively small number of child deaths by guns (but not the millions of children who their brains mashed up and their guts sucked out with a vacuum from their mother’s womb).

This is is the kind of hypocrisy that should make us all vomit our own guts out in the toilet before doing everything we can to stop people legally sucking babies guts out with vacuums.

Alas, many people prefer total sexual licence to kill (concealed by the equally clever euphemism “women’s rights”) to actually caring about all children because they are human beings with value and dignity. Did I mention that they are actually innocent as well, unlike the only killing Leftists actually try to stop: the legitimate and just execution of dangerous criminals.

Anyway, here’s what Obama, champion of children everywhere except the womb, has been up to:

He’s becoming a better actor, this president of ours. On Tuesday, while announcing his new plans to illegally enact more gun control laws without the consent of Congress, President Obama managed to cry on cue.

Obama ran through the requisite list of media-covered shootings in recent years, then got teary-eyed when he got to Newtown, Connecticut. “First graders in Newtown. First graders,” Obama said. “Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad.”

He put on quite the show, chastising Republican presidential candidates and other conservatives who say his gun grabbing is, well, gun grabbing and that it is unconstitutional.

“No matter how many times people try to twist my words around, I taught constitutional law, I know a little bit about this. I get it,” he said. “But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.”

The sad thing is, we could do that. But for that to happen, the president would first have to stop sucking up all the air in the room and let Congress talk about things like toughening sentences for using a gun in a crime or like figuring out ways to shut down the illegal avenues criminals often use to obtain guns.

At this point in his Administration, Obama is desperate for some sort of legacy that won’t mark him forever as the weakling Marxist clown who allowed the economy to wallow in misery for two terms and destroyed all progress that had been made by the Bush Administration in the Middle East.

But as usual, none of the gun control laws he is planning to implement by illegal executive order would have done a lick to stop any of the shootings he mentioned in his speech.

Plus, Obama’s being widely slammed for outright lying about criminals being able to buy guns over the Internet without a background check, not to mention some fudged numbers on gun murders.

“Every single year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns,” Obama said. “Thirty thousand. Suicides, domestic violence, gang shootouts, accidents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters or buried their own children.”

Even the New York Times admitted that two-thirds of those gun deaths are suicides. FBI stats also show that about 2,500 gun deaths yearly are accidental, so the actual numbers of murders involving a gun is somewhere between 8,000 and 9,000 annually.

But of those guns, the vast majority were obtained illegally.

In one study, about a quarter of inmates convicted of gun crimes admitted to stealing the gun they used. A 2004 study found that of the guns that were not outright stolen before their use in crime, 40 percent were bought on the black market, and an additional 37 percent were obtained through other illegal means.

Several studies have shown that guns that followed all the required transfer rules account for around 8 percent of all murders, and the majority of those deaths are domestic violence, crimes of passion or murders committed by the mentally ill.

So Obama’s rules are guaranteed not to affect the group he claims to be targeting, criminals, or the types of killings he claims to be trying to stop, mass shootings.

His sycophants keep telling us that Obama is a genius, so he must understand that his gun-control plans won’t work against anyone except the law-abiding citizens who won’t commit murder. He knows they won’t help anyone like those Newtown kids he’s supposedly so angry about that he has to spout waterworks on television.

Besides, if he really was so worried about the lives of children, he wouldn’t be such a big supporter of abortion.

No, those tears are the tears of a crocodile.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/27714/obama-sheds-tears-to-sell-gun-control/

The Death Knell Of Planned Parenthood? Sure Hope So!

Planned Parenthood was always a disgusting and despicable organisation.

Now, a few more people know about it. Naturally, the pro-murder mainstream media are squirming as they try to avoid covering this horrific news and it’s nice to know, especially since they devote most of their resources to cultural subversion and general lies.

Apparently the story is just gaining momentum though and Bill Muehlenberg’s recent article The Ongoing Implosion of Planned Parenthood makes some powerful commentary on this matter:

Call it what you will, Planned Barrenhood or Banned Parenthood, the last few weeks have been a bit rough for the world’s largest baby killing organisation. Indeed, this is a story that keeps on giving. The group that videoed the diabolical dealings of PP, the Center for Medical Progress, have now released a second – and equally damning – video.
It keeps getting worse and worse. The new video shows a senior PP official haggling over the prices of fetal body parts. Toward the end of the 8-minute video, she even jokes about how she “wants a Lamborghini.” Well, those baby body parts do add up I guess. See it all here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjCs_gvImyw

There is no question that PP is right up there with the Nazis. This is a group that has a long history of demonic activities. Just recently they have been caught out on a number of gruesome deeds:

-covering up sexual abuse of minors

-aiding and abetting sex traffickers

-double-billing taxpayers

-and of course the cold-hearted murder of millions of innocent babies

Well, given that PP was founded by the arch-eugenicist Margaret Sanger, what do we expect? You remember her, with such memorable quotes as:

“The handicapped, including the blind, deaf, dumb, mute and epileptics, are the dead weight of human waste.”

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

“Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”

“The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order,”

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

Nice, real nice. Her callous, heartless and diabolical views were the very basis of PP, and they continue in the same exact mindset today. So why are we surprised at these new revelations? This is simply PP at work. This is what it does for a living. This is its very purpose and function.

But all these new revelations are catching them out big time. If what they deal with (around 350,000 a year in the US alone) are merely clumps of cells one minute, how can they be human body parts (brains, livers, arms, legs, etc) the next minute? When it comes to making money, the misuse and abuse of the English language will do nicely thanks.

Yet in the US they also receive over a half billion dollars a year in taxpayer funding. And on top of that there is plenty of corporate sponsorship as well for these killers. In the US there are 41 corporations and organisations that directly contribute to PP.

This is not only a very well-oiled and efficient killing machine, it is a very lucrative one as well. Indeed, the average salary for a PP regional CEO is just a tad short of $200,000 per year. Killing babies is obviously a lot more profitable than teaching in a school or flipping burgers.

While PP is doing all the sorts of stuff that would make the Nazis proud (and they did learn a lot from Sanger and Co.), one of the more incredible things (but not unexpected) is how the mainstream media has been doing its best to ignore this story.

This is clearly one of the most important stories of the year, yet the lamestream media is doing all it can to avoid it. It is only because the alternative media has made so much of it that they have reluctantly been getting into the act. Mollie Hemingway has just done a piece documenting this despicable dereliction of duty. Compare the beat-up about the Confederate Flag to the PP story:

-The New York Times has run stories and essays on the Confederate flag 149 times since June 17 (and only 39 of those mention Roof), 41 of those in the first six days. That compares to three stories on Planned Parenthood during the same window, just 7 percent of what you’d expect if the New York Times considered those stories merely of equal importance.

-CNN has had 493 mentions of the Confederate flag since June 17 (only 188 of these even mention alleged church shooter Dylann Roof), and managed 167 in the first six days. In the first six days of the Planned Parenthood scandal, they managed 7 mentions, less than 5 percent what you’d expect if you considered those stories only of equal importance.

She mentions other major news outlets, then offers “a few stories that I might have reporters look into” if the MSM is having troubles trying to unearth a story. Here are just some of them:

-We’ve heard about serial murderer/abortionist Kermit Gosnell keeping trophies of his victims, abortion clinics dumping babies in the trash, and now Deborah Nucatola working to do “a little better than break even” in the sales of intact baby organs. What’s the standard procedure for disposal of the unborn children killed in abortion? Are there abortion clinic standards for this? Does it vary state by state? Do states even have regulations? Does Planned Parenthood have uniform regulations? If not, why not? If so, how are they enforced?

-How much money does Planned Parenthood receive via sales of baby organs? Do they keep records? Are those records trustworthy? How do we know? How significant are these funds to the abortion portion of Planned Parenthood’s operation? How does compensation for the children’s lungs, livers, hearts and brains vary by state, if they do vary?

-How far along in a pregnancy must a woman be for her child’s organs to be considered worthwhile for procurement, sale and transfer? How much does the value of a child’s liver, heart, lungs, etc., increase with time? Do the sales of baby organs form a significant enough part of Planned Parenthood’s business model to result in, say, filibustering of protections for late-term unborn children?

-What are the laws on trafficking in human body parts? Who wrote those laws? Was the abortion industry involved in writing those laws?

-How much money is made throughout the organ sale process? How do corporations make their way around laws prohibiting the express sale of human organs? What do ethicists say about these loopholes and workarounds?

-Could expert observers take us through Planned Parenthood’s various responses to the charges levied in the video? They don’t deny the charges. How is that significant?

Good questions indeed. If the MSM were really objective, unbiased, and neutral, they would be all over this story like a rash. But they are not. The overwhelming majority of those in the MSM are secular lefties who fully support abortion on demand. So of course they don’t want to cover this story.

They only want to go after Christians and conservatives. They sure don’t want to go after their own. That is why it is so absolutely essential that the alternative media exists. It is doing the job the MSM refuses to do. And I will also keep hammering away at stories like these.

Pro-life activist Lila Rose had this to say about the new video:

This latest video further illustrates the barbaric reality of business at Planned Parenthood – that after selling an abortion, Planned Parenthood works to improve their bottom line by harvesting the body parts of the child they have just killed. What has our nation come to that we allow the brutality of abortion upon our children, and then sell their broken bodies for profit, all the while, funding the perpetrator? While millions of Americans, on both sides of the political aisle, are expressing their horror at Planned Parenthood’s trafficking of preborn children’s bodies — their tiny lungs, hearts and livers — our taxpayer dollars continue to flow into the organization at the rate of over $500 million per year. Human rights are bipartisan — where is the outcry from presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and others over sale of the parts of children? Silence in the face of such atrocity is complicity.

Exactly. Just as there was damnable silence from far too many Germans when the Nazis were freely doing their thing, and the concentration camps were filling up, so too we have way too much silence today. And it is not just the MSM who are abdicating their responsibilities here.

Most churches and Christian leaders are not saying a word about any of this. They don’t want to rock the boat, upset their congregations, and lose out on the weekly offering. They have blood on their hands. Their unwillingness to stand up for “the least of these” as Jesus put it will not go unnoticed come judgment day.

At the very least, all government funding of PP should stop immediately. We already have several Congressional investigations and at least seven US state investigations going on over this horrific activity. I hope many more such investigations take place, and I hope all the gory details get out far and wide.

And I hope that as a result of all this, PP closes its deadly doors, for good. If we all celebrated the closing of the doors of the death camps in Germany 70 years ago, we should be looking forward to the same here.

Indeed, it’s amazing that this company continues to exist at all but we can be sure that like the Third Reich, it’s days are numbered and that’s a wonderful thing.

“The house of the wicked will be destroyed, but the tent of the upright will flourish.” ‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭14:11‬ ‭ESV‬‬
http://billmuehlenberg.com/2015/07/22/the-ongoing-implosion-of-planned-parenthood/

Transgender: Yet Another Avenue To Sexualize and Exploit Children

Children always become the victims of society’s sin. Whether it’s caught in the crossfire of divorce, murdered in the womb, or groomed for sexual exploitation, humanity has a way of drawing the most vulnerable into our web of wickedness.

One of the latest trends in the ever-evolving sexualisation of children through the media is the fixation on “transgender children”. It’s the same game, just in the advanced stages and it ends the same way: adults using children for their sinful ends.

These children are now the “proof” that we all needed regarding the philosophical concept of transgender: namely, if you feel it, then it is true.

Consider these two important articles about this madness as they articulate just what kind of damage is heading the way of our children:

Media’s New Mania: Transfixed by Transgender

By Katie Yoder | September 3, 2013 | 2:45 PM EDT

Back to school is an exciting time of year – new classmates, new subjects, new books, new gender and a new court-invented right to use the boys or girls room, depending on how you currently “identify.”

Welcome to the brave new world of “the next civil-rights struggle.” From a California law decreeing that any student has the right to use any gender-specific restroom and play on any gender-specific sports team he or she (or she or he) wants, biology be d**ned, to LGBT activists counseling network honchos on more sensitive TV portrayals, transgender is all the rage among liberals and media types.

The campaign to normalize gender confusion relies on emotional appeal. The media present “adorable” “transgender” 6-year-olds or teen couples who transitioned genders together. Or, for a child still unsure of his or her gender, lefty sites like Huffington Post and Slate enthusiastically recommend transgender children’s cartoons and transgender kid camps where little boys dress as “princesses.” It’s all part of the effort to “loosen the reins of gender expression,” as NPR put it.

At the adult level, CNN’s Anderson Cooper spoke with a transgender ex-SEAL “Warrior Princess” who advocated for transgender soldiers, while The Washington Post promoted “new hope” for transgender public bathroom use. The New York Times and the AP have decided to call convicted traitor Bradley Manning “Chelsea” (with all the matching pronouns) simply because he declared he wants to be a woman named Chelsea. 

And no effort to force the public to celebrate “alternative” sexualities would be complete without ABC, CBS, and NBC giving viewers stories of transgendered “normal” people leading “normal” lives – except for the “unique challenge” of transitioning into the opposite sex.

Downsides? Consequences? Differing opinions? Don’t be silly. The accounts of rallies defending marriage between one man and one woman are censored. The stories of entertainment media redefining the family don’t break into the mainstream.

As the same-sex marriage debate proved, the media ruthlessly shut down dissent when they find a pet cause.

The Focus on Children

It was Bloomberg.com that latched onto 6-year-old Coy Mathis – a boy pretending to be a girl who won a Colorado case to use the girls’ school bathroom – and declared it “the next civil-rights struggle.” The article even divulged why it was easy to take up Coy’s banner: “Part of the reason Coy’s story has so transfixed America – part of the reason she got an interview with Katie Couric – is that she is adorable.” Meaning that androgyny is easier to pull off in grade school. 

The International Business Times and The New York Times, presumably also taken with Coy’s lack of 5 o-clock shadow, accused Mathis’ school of “discrimination.” Buzzfeed hailed the “victory.” Several other organizations picked up the report, from The Huffington Post to CNN. ABC, CBS, and NBC acknowledged Mathis – but only online.

In a similar case, liberal Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak has been hyping 6-year-old Tyler (once a Kathryn). Dvorak insisted Tyler was like any other little boy, claiming, “His home looks like a house with a son. Karate gear, soccer balls, cars, trucks and pirate swords abound. At school, he’s a boy. Plain and simple.” The New York Daily News tacked on, “he’s never been happier.”

Even the new royal baby failed escape the escalating trend as The Independent Journal Review noted (sarcastically) twelve tweeters who challenged his gender: “How imperialist of the royal parents to declare their child a ‘boy’ just because he has male genitalia?!” Unfortunately, the Tweeters weren’t being sarcastic.

Of course, if the future King senses he may be a princess (or queen), Slate.com has helpfully pointed out transgender kid camps (and, for their elders, transgender centers) as a resource for “parents who don’t have a gender-confirming 3-year-old who wants to wear high heels and prefers to go down the pink aisle in K-Mart and not that nasty dark boys’ aisle.” While at camp, kids can take a break from bending their own genders to catch a transgender children’s cartoon where a boy transforms into a girl with superpowers in order to save the world.

Parents who are reluctant to let pre-pubescent children make decisions that will impact the rest of their lives can turn to HuffPost Live for a “Gender Myth Busting” session and the reassurance that “it’s only to children’s benefit to break down gender stereotypes.” Then it’s easy to parlay their “Princess Boys” into transgendered children’s books and fawning “Today” show interviews.

But it wasn’t just confused kids who got the “isn’t-that-adorable” treatment. The media could be counted on to ooh and ahh over transgender relationships, no matter how weird the story. Louis Davies and Jamie Eagle who made headlines for refusing to marry until the completion of their gender change surgeries. 

Arin Andrews and Katie Hill proposed an alternative model: a teen transgender couple sharing their transition together. Gay.net wasn’t the only site to find them the “cutest couple ever.” The two of them were meant to be, according to “The Huffington Post,” and, “might seem like your typical young couple, but their love story is unlike many others.” The New York Daily News acknowledged the “teen lovebirds,” whilst The Daily Mail dubbed them “sex-change sweethearts.”

Networks Push Positivity

As they are wont to do, when ABC, NBC, and CBS news shows covered transgender from January to August they fell over themselves trying to sell its normality.

ABC squeezed out a report of 11-year-old Jazz, who confronted “a unique challenge,” during “Good Morning America” on Jan. 18, 2013. Barbara Walters reported on the boy-turned-girl and defined the condition, explaining, “being transgender is not a phase,” and even the parents knew “since she was very young.” Walters noted Jazz’s normal routine, from playing on a girls’ soccer team to using the girls’ bathroom. And of course there were Walters’ usual fluff questions: “What part of being transgender hurts you the most?”

From NBC came the second story. The “Today Show,” on May 3 reported on Jennifer Finney Boylan, a dad-turned-mom who composed a “poignant” memoir to commemorate his conversion to a woman. NBC’s Willie Geist noted how the “dramatic transition” transformed into a “unique journey.” He sympathized with Jennifer over the “fascinating story,” and assumed, “You obviously agonized over this. This was not easy for you but in the end you made the decision that you had to do this for who you were even if it risked your family.”

CBS joined the gang August 13 during the “Evening News with Scott Pelley” when California passed a bill requiring public schools (K-12th grade) to allow youth to select sports teams and bathrooms based on their chosen gender identity. News correspondent John Blackstone interviewed 18-year-old Logan Henderson, a she-turned-he, and sympathized, “It wasn’t easy” with Henderson’s bathroom situation but concluded, “You’re making the best of it.” To his credit, Blackstone also spoke with Brad Dacus, founder of the conservative Pacific Justice Institute for the rare media alternative opinion on concerns from wrestling teams to shower rooms.

The Media Absurd

You can tell a group has broken into the modern American mainstream – no matter how small its numbers or arcane its interests – when it becomes a grievance group or a market segment or both. Transgender has clearly achieved the first, all the more so since CBS execs huddled with GLAAD activists to discuss more positive portray transgenders. (The Netflix series “Orange is the New Black” includes a former fireman in doing time in a women’s prison). They achieved the second with a Time Magazine article on transgender product marketing.  

And then there’s Miss Universe 2013. The pageant altered the rules to allow the transgender contestants because, as Deadline put it, “Let’s face it: this could make ratings soar.” Miss USA’s first transgender contestant sent shockwaves through the media this year by “braving” the swimsuit round, while transgender competitors surfaced on “America’s Next Top Model” as well.

But The Struggle continues. To the chagrin of the Huffington Post, even President Obama failed to include transgender pre-teen rights during the special interest shout-out fest that was his second inaugural speech. CNN’s Anderson Cooper spoke with a transgender ex-SEAL “Warrior Princess” who stated that “there’s a lot of [transgender people] right now” in the military who should be allowed to live as they want. CNN Money went in a tizzy over the challenges for the unemployed transgendered. In June, the Washington Post and the AP uncovered the tyranny of the government’s insistence on rigid male-female categories, publishing a story on “‘outdated’ ID cards that tell the truth about the real gender, not the ‘transgender.’”

But there are some causes for encouragement, and they’re mostly in the public toilet. Back in 2008, The Washington Post hyped “new hope” for transgender men using the ladies’ bathroom, when a Maryland court blocked a ballot initiative and denying transgendered persons the right to choose which bathroom to use. More recently, a lefty blogger conference boasted gender-neutral restrooms and called for the transgender to be allowed to “pee in peace.”

Not to worry; the federal government is on the case. The Obama administration pressured a California school district to allow a transgender girl to access boys’ restrooms – and even sleeping quarters. There was also the $1.35 million grant to examine transgender U.S. military service.

The states and municipalities have been busy as well. New York claimed it’s first openly transgender politician running for city council. A new D.C. transgender law allows birth certificates to reflect an individual’s gender identity. Schools aren’t quite as happy with the transgender spread as they confront upcoming lawsuits and threats concerning bathroom rights in states such as Maine and Florida.

And California is leading the way. Lawmakers approved and California Governor Jerry Brown signed what ABC.com named “historic” (ABC.com) and “groundbreaking bill” (Huffington Post) forcing schools to acknowledge chosen genders. Leading up to the “breakthrough,” transgender high school junior Ashton Lee made the news for sending nearly 6,000 petition signatures to Governor Brown in support of the bill, in an effort “to bring equality and protection to transgender students,” according to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

The law isn’t without critics. Dr. Michael Youssef, Ph.D. and founder of Leading the Way,suggested the mandates are child “brainwashing” in an email to CMI, writing, “This is an important issue that belongs in the home. And taking it away from the parents and placing it into the hands of the government is a giant leap into the abyss of child abuse.

“We need to pray for a spirit of repentance,” he explained, “to fall upon the lobbyists who are resorting to a new low by pushing their agenda on five-year-olds. For children who often don’t know who they are until their late teens, to give them a choice of whom to shower with is beyond the pale of human decency.”

Language Abuse

As with any liberal leftward social push, the first casualty is the English language. Accordingly,

the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorderschanged in May the definition of transgender to “gender dysphoria” and removed “gender identity disorder” from the mental health issues list. 

In August, when convicted traitor Bradley Manning announced he was now “Chelsea” and decreed that “starting today you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun,” The New York Times and the AP readily complied. Before he’d taken a hormone even bought a wig, the man behind the largest ever leak of classified U.S. military intelligence got two respected news organizations to abandon reality. In an email, an AP editor said the agency “will henceforth use Pvt. Chelsea E. Manning … in accordance with her wishes to live as a woman.”

At least that’s an understandable reaction when presented with an individual who insists he is a she. It gets weird when you start inventing language.

With a silliness that used to be confined to liberal arts graduate seminars, NPR recently noted the necessity to “loosen the reins of gender expression” and recommended “zee, zim, zer” instead of the outdated terminology “him” and “her. ”

But made-up language is all the rage on the gay left. Outlets like The Advocate labeled children and adults who identified with their actual biology as cisgender – or “non-trans.” As Basic Rights Oregon (BRO), explained, “Referring to cisgender people as ‘non trans’ implies that cisgender people are the default and that being trans is abnormal.” The BRO, formed as an organization “to sustain and strengthen Oregon’s LGBT rights movement.” But the language is creeping in from the fringe, gaining use at The Huffington Post and even TIME.

The Sylvia Rivera Law Project, a non-profit aiding trans communities, also suggested the term “gender galaxy” in “Trans 101,” highlighting, “One way to picture gender is as a gender galaxy – a space with an infinite number of gender points that can move and that are not hierarchically ordered.”

Brave New World

The normalization of transgender is probably a done-deal. The left has declared it a civil rights issue and the media – news and entertainment – have their marching orders. Fresh from their victory on same-sex marriage, they’ll employ the same tactics.

Trans characters will be turning up in your favorite sit-coms, and ribbons will appear on awards shows. Look forward to a parade of “Princess Boys,” Chelsea Mannings and Miss/Mr Universes, all with a poignant story and all scrambling to sort out their restroom accommodations.  

MEDIA AND THE SEXUALIZATION OF CHILDREN: THOUGHTS FROM A CONCERNED PARENT by Kristen Padilla

The Today Show’s article about a transgender child came up on my Facebook newsfeed once again.

This is the third time I have seen an article from The Today Show featuring children whom, they say, have realized they were born the wrong sex.

These children are 10 years and under. They have yet to hit puberty. Their minds, personalities and bodies are still maturing, and, therefore, we would not consider them adults.

Yet, these children have become the poster children for a sexually hungry and motivated media. They are Exhibit A for a liberal, sexual agenda.

The unnaturalness of same-sex marriage or transgender practices has become naturalized, and if they can prove that people are just born that way, starting with young children, then they believe they have their argument made.

What has resulted, I think, is an overt sexualization of children.

In an important but disturbing article, Katie Yoder makes the case that the media is transfixed on transgender children and its movement.

But the media is not just using children who express a desire to be the opposite sex or love the same sex for its agenda. (This is the first problem.) Those few elite personalities behind the media are trying to influence and change the way our children believe, think about and view sexuality as evidenced in the kinds of shows targeted to our children.

Just take a look at the shows playing on ABC Family, whose tagline is “A new kind of family.” Becoming Us is about an “ordinary” (note the use of this word) Midwestern boy named Ben whose father, after his parents’ divorce, is now transitioning into a woman. Or, how about Baby Daddy, which is about another main character named Ben, whose ex-girlfriend left their baby on his doorstep and who is now raising this child with two other single male adults. Then there’s The Fosters, which is about two lesbian women raising six children. They are described as a “close-knit, loving family.” I could list other popular shows aimed at our children, like “Glee,” that are hyper-sexualized and seem to blush at nothing.

In addition, the media is obsessed with Bruce-turned-Caitlyn Jenner since this popular, all-American athlete makes the perfect model and spokesperson for the transgender movement. (He also was recently awarded the Arthur Ashe Courage Award from ESPN).

I fully expect to see cartoons, video games, children books and movies reflecting these changing views of family and marriages. Already last week I saw a new Tylenol commercial that is trying to redefine conventional family by including scenes of both lesbian and gay couples with children using the hashtag, #HowWeDoFamily.

So where does this leave me as a parent, who believes traditional marriage is best for society and children and who doesn’t share the same views and sympathies as those shared in media?

I don’t have five suggested steps or three answers that will solve our problems. I’m simply sounding the alarm. For some, an alarmist is a bad thing. But for me, alarms have always saved my life – whether it was when my apartment burned down or when a tornado passed by our home. I am grateful for alarms.

I want to provide information and pose questions. As a former journalist, the best starting place is becoming knowledgeable. Knowledge truly is power.

I want to become vigilant and aware of how a minority is trying to change the views of the majority. I want to speak up where necessary and say “No” where needed, even if it isn’t a popular thing to do. Instead of watching Disney and Pixar movies on ABC Family (which has a ridiculous amount of commercials anyway), I can rent those movies. We lived for six months in England without a TV; it is possible (and wonderful!).

Most importantly I do not want to give the media any voice where it concerns my family, particularly my son.

I remember watching the show Friends in college, while my roommate’s favorite show was Will and Grace. We laughed and made excuses for the promiscuous hetero- and homo-sexual lifestyles. They won us over with comedy. It was just so funny. However, these shows, over time, can act like guitar strings on fingers, making us calloused.

But I see more clearly now that while these shows did not change my view of sexuality, over time it has played a part in changing our society’s views. Like a stream that over many years changes the appearance of mountains, the media over time has helped to change and bend hearts and minds to its will.

I don’t want to be ignorant. I want to be vigilant and prayerful. I pray that as my husband and I teach God’s view of sexuality, according to Scripture, to our son, that the Word of God and our feeble attempt will be a louder voice than that of the media.

Like King Solomon, I, too, will say to my son, “Do not forget my teaching, but keep my commands in your heart, for they will prolong your life many years and bring you peace and prosperity.” (Prov. 3:1-2)
Concerning the media and those who wish to pervert sexuality, I will tell him, “For the lips of the adulterous woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as gall, sharp as a double-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps lead straight to the grave. She gives no thought to the way of life; her paths wander aimlessly, but she does not know it.” (Prov. 5:3-6)

I’ve heard seasoned Christians admit that documentaries on transgender children have changed their minds about the topic, documentaries that do all of the above of course. We are in days when even the elect are seemingly deceived.

I recently heard someone make the case that Christians too often lament the end of the modernist era with a fixated negativity on postmodernism and that this need not be the case. It’s trends like this that make me think “don’t be so hasty.”

Postmodernist deconstruction may have only just began to hit its stride so let’s not jump to any conclusions we might regret. After all, nobody thought there could be a repeat of the Great War and look how that turned out.

When a society cannot comprehend the plain and obvious sex of its members, or better yet invents new ones that have never existed before, trouble is brewing. As usual, children will suffer for it.

“And he said to his disciples, “Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.” ‭‭Luke‬ ‭17:1-2‬ ‭ESV‬‬

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭5:20‬ ‭ESV‬‬
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-yoder/2013/09/03/media-s-new-mania-transfixed-transgender
http://kristenrpadilla.com/2015/07/19/media-and-the-sexualization-of-children-thoughts-from-a-concerned-parent/