Space Force General Admits Access to Gender Surgery a Bigger Priority than Accepting Qualified Candidates

The U.S. Space Force has gone completely, unequivocally “woke,” as made evident at a recent Department of Defense “Pride” event. During the event, U.S. Space Force Lt. Gen. DeAnna M. Burt spewed a bunch of “woke” nonsense about how she performs her job.

Our DoD and every branch of our military services just keep getting worse and worse, woker and woker at the top.

Space Force general admits access to gender surgery a bigger priority than accepting better qualified candidates

June 15, 2023 | 

The U.S. Space Force has gone completely, unequivocally “woke,” as made evident at a recent Department of Defense “Pride” event.

During the event, U.S. Space Force Lt. Gen. DeAnna M. Burt spewed a bunch of “woke” nonsense about how she performs her job.

Listen:

“Transformational cultural change requires leadership from the top, and we do not have time to wait. Since January of this year, more than 400 anti-LGBT+ laws have been introduced at the state level,” she began.

“That number is rising and demonstrates a trend that could be dangerous to our service members, their families, and the readiness of the force as a whole,” she continued.

The so-called “anti-LGBT+” laws typically simply bar children from pursuing puberty blockers, transgender surgery, and other non-reversible procedures. It’s not clear what this has to do with the military and its readiness.

It’s also not clear whether it’s appropriate for a top federal government agent to criticize state laws that she appears to personally dislike.

Read more.

©2023. Royal A. Brown III. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Space and Air Forces Launch an LGBTQ Task Force

Fox Celebrating Pride By Encouraging Employees to Read about ‘Glory Holes’ Supports Group That Gives Sterilizing Hormones to Homeless Youth

BREAKING: Leaked docs reveal Fox News wants employees to learn about ‘glory holes’ for pride month

Fox News may not be woke when it comes to programming, but they are very woke behind the scenes according to documents obtained by Matt Walsh.

The documents show that, via the employee portal at Fox News, employees are encouraged to learn about ‘glory holes’ and other terrible stuff in celebration of pride month.

Matt Walsh details it all below [EXPLICIT MATERIAL AND IMAGES]:

Read more.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

LGBT Activists Flood Target With Bomb Threats, Shameless Media Pretend Conservatives Did It

The Trans Lobby Wants To Make It Illegal To Talk A Child Out Of A Sex Change

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Far-Left Jurisdiction Appalled When Middle Schoolers Revolt against Pride Day

Two hundred and fifty years after the Boston Tea Party, middle schoolers in a Boston suburb channeled its spirit against a new form of tyrannical oppression, LGBT Pride. Teachers, parents, and even administrators of the far-Left jurisdiction were “shocked,” “horrified,” and “extremely disheartened” by these middle schoolers’ solid grasp of basic biology, and naturally they retreated into platitudes of unity to justify their preferring a divisive principle to a unifying one.

Marshall Simonds Middle School (MSMS) in Burlington, Massachusetts approved a Pride Month Spirit Day on June 2 (their school year ends on June 16), which was requested and sponsored by Spectrum Club, a student organization “for LGBTQ+ students and allies,” as The Boston Globe described. Spectrum Club decked the school out in full-blown carnival regalia — rainbow streamers, Pride flag banners, handmade Pride Month signs, and “educational” — a.k.a. emotionally badgering — posters with messages like, “Why it’s not ok to say ‘That’s so gay’” and a quote by gay playwright Tennessee Williams implying that no human heart is straight. Spectrum Club members handed out rainbow stickers, and school personnel invited all students and faculty to wear rainbow clothing to demonstrate their support.

Some students not only refused to bow to the rainbow idol, but also organized a counterprotest. “This became evident in the lunchroom, where several groups of students wore red, white, blue, or black, including face paint,” wrote school principal Cari Perchase, in a letter to parents. “Groups of students were heard chanting, ‘U.S.A. are my pronouns,’ and students glared intimidatingly at faculty members showing pride.”

Although no hard numbers have been cited, the insubordinate faction seemed to include no insignificant portion of students. “Students were shamed into removing their stickers or covering their clothing with rainbows,” Perchase complained (although the sentence is ambiguous, “with rainbows” must modify “clothing,” not “covering” to make sense). In other words, the middle schoolers responded to peer pressure to celebrate LGBT Pride with peer pressure against celebrating LGBT Pride — and they succeeded. Peer pressure doesn’t work unless nearly “everybody is doing it.”

With costumes, face paint, and the resolve to agitate for liberty, the only element these middle schoolers needed to completely imitate the demonstration’s 1773 precedent was a little tea unboxing. In fact, at least some of the miffed middle schoolers performed an equivalent act by destroying the symbols of an imperious policy foisted upon them without their input — tearing down decorations, ripping them up, and stuffing them in water fountains.

Perchase was “extremely disheartened” by this behavior, she wrote. “I fully respect that our diverse community has diverse opinions and beliefs. I also respect individuals’ right to express their opinions through clothing choices and freedom of speech. When one individual or group of individuals’ beliefs and actions result in the demeaning of another individual or group, it is completely unacceptable.” Thus began the theme of Burlington adults rebuking the rebellious middle schoolers by wrapping affrontive Pride displays in the language of tolerance and inclusivity.

Middle schoolers are not widely known for knowing where to draw the line of acceptable behavior, and destroying the property of others crossed it. But, if that’s what Perchase meant by the three sentences above, that’s not what she said. Instead, Perchase undermined her lip service to free opinion and expression when she said that even beliefs are “completely unacceptable” if they demean others.

The problem is, the boundaries of “demeaning” beliefs have become exceedingly blurred with regard to LGBT+ identities. Earlier this year, another Massachusetts middle schooler was suspended for wearing a shirt that stated a biological fact, “there are only two genders,” because it allegedly made some people at his school feel “unsafe.” If middle schoolers don’t know where to draw the line for acceptable behavior, Massachusetts schools sure aren’t helping to clarify it for them.

Perchase then apologized to Marshall Simonds students who identify as LGBT. “I am truly sorry that a day meant for you to celebrate your identity turned into a day of intolerance,” she said, groveling as if she had torn down the decorations herself. “Schools are supposed to be a safe place for ALL students and faculty. Some community members’ actions created an unsafe environment for many of our students, caregivers, and faculty.”

There’s that word “unsafe” again. But what safety incident provoked its use? Did a student arrive at school with a gun, or at least a knife? Did a counterprotesting student threaten, push, or even slap any LGBT-identifying classmate? If such an incident had occurred, surely that lede would have headlined every news report. Yet, based on available news reports, the school did not even call the police.

Thus, the available facts lead us to conclude that Principal Perchase was implying that language — and even opinions — critical of excessive Pride celebrations amounts to violence against people who identify as LGBT. This untenable philosophical position was echoed in a letter by Burlington Public Schools (BPS) Superintendent Eric Conti, who insisted that “The rise in anti LGBTQ+ violence across the country is unacceptable and has no place in our schools.” Burlington Equity Coalition also peddled the “violence” mantra in a statement expressing solidarity with “members of the school community who were harmed by these acts of intolerance.”

Conti’s June 4 letter to parents was the second berating the protesting middle schoolers. He made a few good points, such as noting that spirit day “participation is optional,” but “respectful behavior … is non-negotiable.”

But Conti’s letter made clear that the school system insisted upon overtly favoring certain perspectives, while denying that they were showing favoritism. “We embrace everyone for who they are and for what they bring to our schools and larger community,” said Conti, but then he promised to train staff to “identify and respond to identity bigotry and discrimination.” Suddenly, the “embrace everyone” platitude is superseded by an “except bigots” caveat. In case any reader was uninitiated as to which identities and opinions are unquestionable, and which ones make you a bigot, Conti invited all readers to “join us in taking a stand against homophobia.”

Conti expressed no reservations about choosing a side, even as a public employee of a diverse community. “I recognize that discussions and celebrations of individual identity are complex and impacted by individual values, religions, and cultural norms, the result of which may include expressions of racism, anti-religious hate, ableism, and in this case homophobia,” he warned. Instead of respecting those values, religions, and norms, he intolerantly insisted that they stand aside if they opposed his sacred ideal of toleration.

Conti knows who butters his bread, because community members overwhelmingly endorsed his intolerance of any LGBT+ criticism at two snowflake struggle sessions this week — a Burlington Select Board meeting on Monday and a BPS School Committee meeting on Tuesday.

“I thought Burlington was a safer place than Texas or Florida. Obviously I was wrong,” complained parent and former school committee member Cara Foss. She called on local officials to suppress the middle schooler revolt head-on, “there’s some undercurrents in Burlington that town administration and school administration need to address more directly and more firmly.”

“The issue of Pride at schools is very controversial, I understand that,” Foss continued. “I think we need to start at a place of commonality.” But she urged officials to stamp out any LGBT skepticism, no matter how long it took. “I think it will take some time. It takes a lot of hard work and conversation, but I believe in Burlington, I believe we can get there.”

Other public commenters expressed concern over the organization the middle schoolers demonstrated. “It was an unruly disruption that was organized ahead of time,” noted Burlington resident Joanne Frustaci. “I was shocked and horrified,” said parent Nila Almstrom. “They organized themselves; they came to school wearing outfits and face paint. And if they’re big enough to do that, then they’re big enough to have this conversation.” By “big enough to have this conversation,” Almstrom apparently meant that middle schoolers should allow the adults to dictate their opinions for them, and that they should lie down and accept their verbal lashing like good little sheep. Her objective, she said, was that the students could “take responsibility for their actions and still become allies” of the LGBT community.

“How many children felt power yesterday by committing an act of intimidation?” intoned librarian and former high school teacher Andrea Bono-Bunker Monday. “How many children had a seed of homophobia planted in them yesterday? How many children now feel worse about themselves because of what they witnessed or experienced yesterday? How many children now think that being part of or supportive of the LGBTQIA+ community is un-American?”

What psychobabble! She tacitly admits the former powerlessness felt by middle schoolers uncomfortable with in-your-face Pride celebrations, while at the same time wrongly asserting a child’s self-worth should be the most important consideration. She feigns surprise that force-feeding middle schoolers — now beginning to think for themselves — such undigestible fare would cause them to spew forth a putrid yet instinctive response. She seems unable to comprehend the Left’s campaign to turn young people into political activists had already sown every “seed” necessary for the outburst, or that the LGBT ideology’s intolerance of free speech or criticism — not to mention its adherents’ disdain for America itself — had already driven into these middle schoolers’ minds a mental wedge between supporting the “LGBTQIA+” community or supporting America.

“While these students are culpable, the underlying issue is where did they get the idea to do this in the first place?” said Bono-Bunker. Other speakers also held the parents responsible for their children’s rejection of LGBT Pride. “This type of intolerant rhetoric starts in the home,” insisted one father intolerantly.

Others demanded action. “It would be naïve of us to think that what happened at the middle school won’t escalate to something more tragic in the future. It isn’t going to go magically away; it will get worse,” parent Jessika Dubay-Dang forecasted. Apparently, wearing red, white, and blue to school on Pride Day is “tragic” now. If the adults don’t intervene immediately, such malformed children might grow up standing for the Pledge of Allegiance, living productive and happy lives focused on others, and even — perish the thought! — owning a gun.

In all seriousness, Dubay-Dang likely meant that these middle schoolers would move from lesser violence to greater violence. Again, this presumes the middle schoolers committed violence, which, apart from trashing decorations, they didn’t. But to take her argument on its own terms for a moment, Dubay-Dang argues that their violent thoughts and words show that these young students have been radicalized, and that they will progress to further violence as their radicalism develops. If that’s true, the proper cure would be identifying the source of the radicalization and removing it. To the extent that these youngsters were radicalized — again, only in the terms of her argument — they are reacting to the oppressive, suffocating celebration of LGBT ideology, with no dissent tolerated. What do Dubay-Dang and other parents propose? More of the same!

Dubay-Dang wasn’t alone in calling for action. Burlington Equality Coalition also called on school administrators to “provide consequences” for counter-protestors and “take an active stand against hate under the guise of ‘free expression.’” (Where did those students get the notion that supporting the LGBT agenda is un-American?) “Without any direct and concrete action, these incidents will occur again and increase in severity,” they warned. Shutting down the free expression of students was “a chance to remind residents that every person is important and welcome in our town,” said the LGBT advocacy organization.

In addition to punishing demonstrators, Burlington Equality also demanded school administrators fill a DEI director position that has been “unfilled for almost a year” and that the town board “reinstate the recently disbanded Diversity, Equity and Inclusion subcommittee” (its funding was redirected to other DEI training initiatives). Additionally, Perchase said they would hold listening sessions to hear students’ concerns, create a form whereby students could anonymously report each other for hateful conduct (does anyone else see a problem with this?), and prepare additional curriculum to teach students tolerance, acceptance, and respect (which rings of the SPLC’s Teaching Tolerance curriculum).

Town officials responded to community gripes by affirming them. “A bad light has been cast over our town,” agreed Select Board member Mike Espejo. “I was very upset. I’ve lost sleep over it. It kind of shocked me to my core. I didn’t think something like that could happen in Burlington.” At least two other board members agreed with the sentiment, and the board promised to consider how to address the issue over the summer.

For their part, school officials seem reluctant to discipline students for the disruption. At the Tuesday meeting, Burlington School Committee Chair Martha Simon stressed that the offenders were only middle schoolers. “Middle school should be a safe place for all students to express themselves, to make mistakes, and to learn from each other,” she said.

School officials may also not relish the responsibility of sniffing out which protesting students had actually destroyed property. “Some of the kids threw the stickers on the ground,” said Christine Steiner, mother of one girl who protested. “But I can only speak for my daughter, she just didn’t want to wear that to school. It’s not that she wanted to hurt anybody’s feelings.” Such a remark suggests the students may have felt more pressure to wear rainbow attire beforehand than school officials have admitted to after the fact. Steiner added that her daughter felt coerced to join the celebration of Pride and was offended by some of the messages, such as the Tennessee Williams poster implying no one is straight.

Conti had taken a position similar to Simon in his earlier letter, “The Burlington Public Schools are obligated to provide a safe environment for all students to feel safe, seen, and respected without retaliation.” But school officials making not-so-subtle digs as politically incorrect ideas is totally cool.

The more thoughtful responses preferred discussion to punishment. “It is not enough to publicly denounce these incidents,” said Conti. “As a school system we have a unique opportunity to educate our community on the nature of these events.” He probably means indoctrination, but at least he isn’t punishing students as the local LGBT coalition demanded.

“I think what we need to do is turn down the temperature,” said Espejo, “and instead of talking at each other, look each other in the face and talk to each other, hear each other’s concerns, complaints and try to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes and I think that would go a long way.” As Conti put it, “Let us all work on being kinder to each other.”

It didn’t take much listening to locate the source of student anger. “Perchase said she received some feedback that the counter message was in response to the school not recognizing the observance of Memorial Day,” reported local news station WHDH. Perchase said the lack of recognition was an “oversight” and reiterated, “respect for the observance of Memorial Day and respect for the LGBTQ community are not mutually exclusive.”

Kind of a big oversight, no? The school ignored a federal holiday, for which classes were cancelled, but foamed at the mouth to convert their building into a temple to LGBT Pride. So, in theory, Perchase is correct that respect for the official holiday and the unofficial debauchery month are “not mutually exclusive.” But in actual practice, the school got so excited about celebrating a divisive niche that they completely overlooked a generic and unifying American institution in the very same week. No wonder the students wore red, white, and blue. Instead of correcting this grave error, the school district responded to the incident with more DEI programs, not more American unity.

The incident reached such a pitch that it attracted the attention of Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey (D), who identifies as a lesbian. “I hope it becomes a teaching moment for the young people who were involved in that,” said Healey. “It doesn’t represent who we are as a state.” That may be true for today’s voting populace, but these middle schoolers — the next generation — are recalling an earlier Massachusetts tradition that responded to oppression and tyranny by dumping tea in Boston harbor.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

I Am Non-Man, Hear Me Roar

There’s an old proverb that says there are two kinds of people in the world: men, and non-men.

Except there’s no such proverb. Such thinking can only come from the academic crème de la crème at one of America’s elite universities. Enter Johns Hopkins University’s “LGBTQ Glossary.” The glossary purported to be, “an introduction to the community, and […] not the definitive answer as to how everyone understands these terms.” Did you get that? It’s a list of definitions that are not definitive. Welcome to college, folks — where hell hath no fury as a non-man scorned.

Controversy ensued when this definition was highlighted by critics on Twitter:

Lesbian [sexual orientation]: A non-man attracted to non-men. While past definitions refer to ‘lesbian’ as a woman who is emotionally, romantically, and/or sexually attracted to other women, this updated definition includes non-binary people who may also identify with the label.

If you’re scratching your head a bit, you’re not alone. As “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling keenly observed:

“Man: no definition needed.

Non-man (formerly known as woman): a being definable only by reference to the male. An absence, a vacuum where there’s no man-ness.”

While it’s true that men the world over have difficulty understanding women, defining them only in the context of men might not be the best approach. As often happens when gaffes get too much attention, Johns Hopkins — at the time of this writing — must be rethinking things. They took down the entire glossary, and replaced it with this statement:

“Upon becoming aware of the language in question, we have begun working to determine the origin and context of the glossary’s definitions. We have removed the page from our website while we gather more information.”

Oops. In other words, they apparently had no idea where these non-definitive definitions came from — they simply posted them on their website. To Johns Hopkins’s credit, they didn’t double-down on absurdity — at least not yet. A day later, they revised the page yet again, saying:

“While the glossary is a resource posted on the website of the Johns Hopkins University Office of Diversity and Inclusion (ODI); the definitions were not reviewed or approved by ODI leadership and the language in question has been removed pending review.”

Someone (if they ever find who did this!) is likely to get re-educated in a bad way. However the university’s diversity and inclusion episode eventually rewrites the glossary, it’s clear that what was briefly a cultural battle over pronouns has abandoned the “pro” and now moved squarely to the nouns. Are verbs next on the chopping block?

Absurdities like this could easily be overlooked but for the fact that really educated people are really thinking that the best way to describe a woman is a “non-man.” Never mind that it’s a term that could encompass almost anything. Would a serpent qualify as a non-man? Check. Would a forbidden fruit qualify? You bet.

Man’s first recorded words in the Bible are of appreciation for the woman God had made:

“Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’” (Gen 2:23, ESV)

The woman was certainly “not him,” but that was far from a defining characteristic. While Supreme Court justices may have difficulty defining women, the Bible’s unfolding definition paints a picture of a being created in God’s image and a display of his glory. Contrast that with Hopkins’s definition that’s merely a breath away from calling women “nonpersons.”

There’s a long history of dehumanization in the world, and it never turns out well. This clumsy glossary dehumanizes and erases women, but those of us who are “non-women” should be just as concerned. The never-ending redefinition of terms and relabeling of people ultimately devours even those who are doing the redefining. To be sure, no one is man enough or non-man enough to withstand the all-consuming nature of this lie.

For those of us who know the truth, we have an opportunity to counter the madness with the stark simplicity of the biblical worldview. God created us in his image. Male and female he created us. It’s simple, it’s true, and it reflects the reality of God’s order. And a God who orders things deserves to be listened to. And thankfully, he has spoken to us in his word through his son, who was born of a woman and grew up a man (nothing non- about either of them).

A step toward the man Jesus offers us the hope of new creation for both man and woman. “Behold, I am making all things new.” To be defined by him is our only hope. His is the only glossary in which we will find humanity, both man and woman. Non-men need not apply.

AUTHOR

Jared Bridges

Jared Bridges is editor-in-chief of The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Republicans Gun for Biden’s Pride Flags

While the White House races to distance itself from the impromptu strip show on its South Lawn last Saturday, the bare-breasted trans display was only one part of the taxpayer-funded circus that Joe Biden brought to the most sacred residence in America. “Add this to the list of ways Biden has degraded the prestige and decorum of the office of president,” Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) fumed. A list that also includes his decision to make the controversial Progress Flag the balcony focal point during his Pride fest, centered in a place of honor that should be reserved for our nation’s colors.

Most Americans still can’t get over the image of the transgender baby blue and pink draped over one of the most symbolic buildings in America. The president’s brazen endorsement of a movement that’s mutilating children and splitting up families was like a slap in the face to a country already burning with rage over the Democrats’ trans fixation.

“The flag of the United States of America placed in equal stature on the flank of the alphabet cult battle flag,” Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.) seethed. “The Biden administration is a disgrace.” Others pointed out the flagrant violation of the U.S. Flag Code, which White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre brushed off. “Did anybody notice that or fail to notice that,” a reporter asked, “or was it an intentional statement?”

Jean-Pierre was defiant, insisting the president was “proud” to display the Progress Flag, even calling it a “historic” moment for a day “centered around love and family.” “… [W]e’re not going to let anyone distract us from that, what was the meaning of the day. … I’m certainly not going to get into protocols from here. … I’ll leave that to others.”

Those “others” may soon be House Republicans, who’ve wasted no time putting the Biden administration on notice for its anti-American displays. On Wednesday, Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) used Flag Day “to remind everyone that the Stars and Stripes is the ONLY flag that displays our nation’s shared values.”

His Senate colleague, Roger Marshall (R), introduced a bill called the One Flag for All Act Wednesday to make it illegal to “fly, drape, or display any flag other than the American flag on federal buildings or properties, with limited exceptions.” “We have a duty…” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) agreed, “[to stand] up in defense of this country instead of a radical Leftist ideology that results in a pride flag being hung at the same level as the US flag on the front of the White House.”

Together, Republicans refuse to sit by and let the president insult the brave men and women who’ve fought and died under the colors our leaders should be flying. They’ve been especially irate over Secretary of Veteran Affairs Denis McDonough’s directive to fly the rainbow and Progress Flags above, beside, or even in lieu of the stars and stripes at VA facilities. The GOP’s Mississippi delegation fired off an indignant letter over the rainbow colors at Biloxi National Cemetery, which they say shows “deep disrespect” to our nation’s servicemembers.

“Replacing the United States flag with a flag that promotes a particular sexual or gender identity goes against the very mission of our national cemeteries. … Cemeteries should be places for reflection and respect, not public virtue signaling.

“This political stunt is yet another example of this Administration’s willingness to promote its political agenda rather than focus on its mission as the executive branch. Our veterans expect the Department of Veteran Affairs to provide services, not controversial ideologies.”

The controversy is one of several triggered by McDonough’s decision to allow the Pride flag at every VA facility — a move that’s sparked protests in cities like Fresno. One of the demonstrators, John Cline, a combat medic who served in Vietnam, told reporters, “That flag is now being flown in a spot that we hold very sacred, and no organization should be put above any other organization in that area.” Cline explained that he’d “even spoken with some of our gay veterans, and they also believe that the Walk of Honor is not the place where it should be flown.”

If the grassroots fury doesn’t get McDonough’s attention, maybe Congress will. On Tuesday, House Republicans raised the stakes — passing an amendment to the VA spending bill that would not only forbid the agency from flying the Pride flag, but also rolls back the administration’s outrageous taxpayer-funded abortions and gender transition surgeries for veterans.

“This is something that should be handled by Congress, not by the executive branch,” Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) argued about the president’s woke social policies. As of February, reports show the VA has taken 34 unborn lives — all at Americans’ expense and all in violation of the Hyde Amendment.

As for gender transition treatments, the VA has been plotting for two years to add “surgical procedures” and “hormone therapies” to its list of covered services, insisting it would “save lives.” Republicans voted 34-27 to strike the policy, a move that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) called a waste of time. “This committee … should be focused on issues that face the veterans community every day: ending veteran suicide, decreasing the claims backlogs, ensuring the VA can attract and retain clinicians. But we are instead focusing on non-issues to bow down to the demands of the far-right wing of the Republican Party.”

These “non-issues,” as Wasserman Schultz calls them, are at the heart of a raging national debate that Democrats are soundly losing. At a time when backlash to Pride is at a fevered pitch, most Americans would agree it’s not too much to ask that our veterans aren’t exploited in Biden’s political games. Under this latest House amendment, the VA would be barred from flying any flag “other than the flag of the United States, the flag of a state, territory, or District of Columbia, the flag of an Indian tribal government, the flag of the department, the flag of an armed force, or the POW/MIA flag.”

It would guarantee that the “work and the message of the VA is not divisive,” Rep. Michael Guest (R-Miss.) insisted, “is not controversial, and is not promoting a particular gender ideology, but rather is respect[ful] of our veterans.”

As Family Research Council’s executive vice president, Lt. General (Ret.) William Boykin said, “So many Americans have given so much — including their lives — to give all Americans the right to be proud of who we are as a nation and not just a special sub-group. The actions by the Veterans Administration to put the LGBT flag on par with the American flag is an ill-conceived and disgusting action which cannot be justified. It leaves me wondering: Is anyone in charge of the VA?”

As Boykin emphasized to The Washington Stand, “It is important for us as a nation to continually remind ourselves of the sacrifices that have been made by these men and women in uniform in helping to preserve our liberties.”

In the meantime, he insisted, “Someone needs to be held accountable for this disgusting display of anti-American and anti-veteran behavior.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The ‘LGBT Pride’ Flag’s True Colors are Blood Red with a Splash of Gold

pride

noun

  1. a feeling of great satisfaction derived from one’s own achievements.

Achievements.

Achievements.

Achievements.

It might be news to some, especially to the left’s useful idiots on the left and the right, but the “LGBT Pride movement” is a communist movement. Same with the “Black Lives Matter movement,” the “Feminist movement,” etc. Because a naked communist movement might wake up too many Americans, and leftists know that, they hide behind race, sex and sexuality to push communism.

And we really need to stop calling leftists “liberals,” as even so-called conservative pundits continue to do. Leftists aren’t “old school classical liberals”; they’re fire-breathing anti-American commies looking to do us in from within, and if the last few years didn’t convince you of that, nothing will. As for the “old school classical liberals” who still exist, however few of them there are, some of them are under the delusion that the answer to leftism is liberalism, when it was liberalism that was subsumed by leftism, which showed its Achilles heel.

With the left now openly communizing and sexualizing children, through “entertainment” and government schools, and no doubt even some private schools, Americans who are known for their tolerance and acceptance, no matter what intolerant leftists claim, have had about enough of the left. We can tolerate a lot, we can accept a lot, and adults are free to do what they want, so long as they don’t hurt others, but once leftists went after children in such an obvious way that no one can deny, an actual resistance to leftist madness began to take place, and is growing stronger. The left’s response to this resistance, particularly the resistance by fed up parents, is for our leftist government and its now KGB-like FBI to identify parents who object to gay pornography in children’s books, etc., as “terrorists.” “Terrorists.”

And then you have the left’s useful idiots on the left and the right who celebrate “Pride” as if were a celebration of actual pride, which isn’t the case, as pride is a personal thing for individuals, for their achievements, not one’s sexuality. Then there are also the “Pride” celebrations at churches, held by Christians who are also the left’s useful idiots.

We’re halfway through “LGBT Pride Month,” and have yet to see MAGA hat-wearing homosexuals being celebrated by the “LGBT community,” furthering my point that this is a leftist movement, through and through. We’re told that it is an “inclusive” movement, but can you think of any non-Democrat/non-leftist/non-communist gays being celebrated during “LGBT Pride Month”? But we did see trans boobs being flopped around on the White House lawn, with the boob-in-chief saying about “LGBT” people, that they’re “the bravest and most inspiring people I’ve ever known.” He doesn’t know them, but he does know his son, Hunter, and he’s called him “the smartest man I know.” And the YouTube video of trans boobs being flashed on the White House lawn was slapped with age restrictions by YouTube, even though the leftists at YouTube are all in on sexualizing and communizing children.

As for those who still think they can get away with saying that they have no clue as to why decent Americans are objecting to the “LBGT” movement, they need to be reminded that most Americans didn’t give a damn about gay people, trans, and drag queens until they targeted children. Americans truly have a live and let live attitude, but leftists in America, who’ve embraced the foreign idea, leftism, don’t have that live and let live attitude. They not only want to drive electric cars, but they want to force all of us to do that. They don’t only want to take covid “vaccines,” they want to force all of us to take them. And so on. Leftists crossed the line when they explicitly went after children, and they can’t now pretend that they haven’t done that. That was the flashpoint for Americans. And I see that even some gays, notably the group, Gays Against Groomers, understand that the communist gays simply cannot resist crossing the line and upending years good will from average Americans.

In sum, the LGBT movement is a gay communist movement that now expresses a triumphalist attitude about their position in 2023, where they moan about how “marginalized” they are, while shoving their lifestyle in our children’s faces. As one of these gay supremacists put it the other day, “Straight sex is just not natural. Those are biological facts.” I would tell this gay supremacist that without natural straight sex, he and billions of people wouldn’t exist.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Transvestite Flashes Fake Breasts Below White House’s Prominently Flown Pride Flag After Taking Photo with Biden

Most Americans Say Changing Gender is ‘Morally Wrong’: Poll

Arab Israeli woman who had been threatened over her sexual orientation is shot dead

RELATED VIDEO: You cannot mock God

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Sexualization of Children and Dialectics: Media, Leftist Activists Group in Collusion at Many Levels

A very important event took place in Ottawa yesterday [June 13, 2023]. One which has implications for school board workers and teachers that should be of some concern. What makes it so important isn’t just what took place, but who did not show up for it and the likely reason why not. The absence of these groups indicates collusion between the organized left, and broadcast media as a greater conspiracy to dialectically destroy classical Canada and the values of those Canadians, and to do so with a consistent set of Maoist narrative attacks. Yes, that will be explained.

Let’s start with the event. Something like three to five hundred Muslims went to the OCDSB to protest the entirety of the sexual indoctrination of children at Ottawa schools. And to be a little clearer, I think it is safe to estimate that the Islamic objections to SOGI [Sexual Orientation Gender Identity] is with with a broader brush than the protest on Friday, which was by a very diverse group of people. Led by Josh Alexander and Billboard Chris, The videos of which can be seen here, more focussed on the most destructive aspects of it.

But this event Tuesday at the Ottawa Carleton District School Board appears to have been organized through the mosques, and the participants would be 85% Muslim at a guess. The protest Friday, was against sexualizing children and especially getting them on dangerous drugs and talking them into dangerous surgical procedures in the name of Trans-rights, which would make them monsters of a sort for life. Neither male or female and certainly not natural in any sense. Sterile, and in a very high category for suicide, with complications from these procedures which can be unimaginable, and likely few would do it if they were properly informed.

The Friday protest was met with a very well organized leftist counter-protest and lots and lots of broadcast media. And while the initial protest would have just been a walk up and down Broadview and maybe a few speeches to the converted, the counter-protest was positively illegal. They blockaded the entire road at multiple points. More to the point, each time a protestor tried to engage the leftists, who sported PSAC, (Canadian government Union flags), and other communist symbols and initiate language for communism, such as hats that read: “Veteran of the Class War”, at yesterday’s Islamic protest right at the HQ of the Ottawa Carleton District School Board, no MSM TV crews were visible, and no leftist counter demonstration except for one woman who had a sign claiming to be Muslim and a friend of LGBTQ. She can be found counter-protesting at every event by non-Leftists in Ottawa pretty much, which somewhat lessens the effect.

To the point: Over the years, many concerned Canadians have had protests over the acceptance of Islamic norms in Canada. The limits of freedom of speech which Islam demands, is extreme. The punishments for violating them often fatal. Many teachers, activists and journalists and satirists have been murdered by Muslims across the West in Islamic continuous efforts to crush any criticism of Islam or its icons. The central dogma that homosexuals should be killed according to Islamic scripture as another easy example. One simply cannot even talk about that without being shut down, despite it being an obvious truth. Iran hangs homosexuals and Saudi Arabia decapitates them with a sword. It’s no secret except from anyone watching MSM. The keeping of sex slaves and slaves in general. And while Islam employs direct violence and force to prevent these opinions from having an effect on people’s views of Islam, or diminishing the authority of Islam in the minds of the public, the leftist-media collusion uses something more akin to a Maoist narrative attack.

The left will insist that any attempt to expose the actual scripture, history and current behaviour of Islam in countries with sharia law, and that is a lot of countries, is Islamophobic. Nazi. Intolerant. Hateful. As a tactic this could be codified in a couple of ways. Alinsky’s rule 13 for example, or DARVO, DARVO certainly comes very close. But this tactic is consistent, and at the very least, tacit collusion between organized leftist groups and the MSM And across the spectrum of pseudo-realities and narratives. If you try to present the truth about climate-science publicly at best you will be ignored, but if someone sees it, you will be demonized as a climate denier. It needs both a leftist group on the ground and a captured, (read communist) main stream media to work. You have the leftists who make damn sure that the message, (which is usually true) of the initial protest is not heard, and that they are made to look evil, thuggish and intolerant. Then the media will spin the reporting such that the left, which is always the more aggressive group, is actually the victims of the conservatives. The left must be portrayed as defending a vulnerable minority. Those who attempt to pierce the narratives with truth, will be dialectically destroyed with Discourse theory, DARVO, Alinsky 13, lets just call all these variations on Marxist critical theory.

So when a Muslim group actually organized a protest and had Quranic quote signs, full Islamic gear on the women and several men who appeared to be imams, and were very clear about how they felt about the attack on their children in schools via sexual messaging, the left knew they could not counter-protest as the big-lie would be exposed on two fronts, and the media knew they could not attend and have on the record, the Islamic view of sexual messaging in the schools.

Just now the following comment came to the site:

Today CBC kids news, child reporter named Saab Vahedyousef explained on the kids show what the term 2SLGBTQQIPAA stands for.  “Two-Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Pansexual, Asexual, Allies

So while hundreds of Muslims, whole families protested in person against a much wider spectrum of issues of deviant sexuality from an Islamic perspective, CBC is promoting a Muslim child gleefully explaining what the letters mean in sexual alphabet soup. And this is why they were not there. CBC, like Global and CTV, are not news services or even information services in any way. They are dialectic machines of destruction, working with leftist groups to create and enforce narratives that they all know are untrue, and profoundly damaging to not just our culture, but to all cultures.

I hope CBC et al remembers how it worked out for the communists after the Iranian revolution they caused. Because that is likely the future here.

And down the street a few minutes from the OCDSB HQ, a sign for a Church. One you hardly ever see in front of a mosque.

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Canada Ignoring an Islamic Protest to Gender Ideology Due to Fears of Violent Retribution

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column by is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Radical LGBT ‘Pride’ Is Full of Extreme Violence

Over the last several years, the United States has seen a disturbing uptick in K-12 schools protecting the instigators of assault against other students in the name of solidarity with the LGBT community. Children are being abused in school bathrooms, and leftist school administrators and the liberal media are covering it up because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

We are living in a world where political agendas are often placed ahead of protecting innocent youth in their places of education. Just last week, Fox News reported the account of a 15-year-old girl from Oklahoma who was attacked and beaten by a 17-year-old male who identified as transgender in the girls’ bathroom.

The trans-identifying male not only violated the young girl but also violated state law, which directs students to use the bathroom designated by the gender on their birth certificate. The school was quick to defend its position, even though the male student had been targeting the girl previously, to the point of being searched by police for weapons. The girl had told school administrators that the trans-identifying student was in fact a male, but the school later claimed in a statement that it had no previous reason to believe the abuser was a male. Lawyers for the girl have pushed back, stating the school did know and are responsible for failing to pursue the matter.

Because of the school’s failure to investigate multiple red flags and comply with state law, a young girl was brutally beaten in the bathroom. In March, a school in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin came under fire when three 14-year-old girls complained to school administrators that an 18-year-old male student who identified as a transgender entered the communal shower in the girls’ locker room and exposed himself.

The school did not notify its Title IX coordinator, nor did it launch an investigation into the incident. According to a local report, the adult male had not been in the PE class with girls and they were surprised to see him in the locker room. The girls asserted they were aware the male identified as transgender and were uncomfortable with his presence, but they received no protection. According to the girls’ account, the male entered the shower space after them and proceeded to disrobe, exposing his male genitalia and commenting, “I’m trans, by the way.”

Regardless of how some folks feel about the issue of transitioning genders, everyone should recognize the moral and legal problems of a biological adult male exposing himself to underage girls. And, in this case, the emotional problems associated with it happening against their will. Protecting indecency and sexual abuse isn’t progressive, it’s regressive. For centuries, women and allies have been fighting for equal opportunities and equal protections. Permitting and protecting sex abusers and pedophiles (by definition) is a dangerous, illegal, and disgusting slope.

There are countless examples of young girls and boys being assaulted in places that would have traditionally been protected, such as changing rooms, bathrooms, and locker rooms. Instead of ensuring the safety of young girls, schools are allowing boys to enter private spaces and create an increased risk of harm and sexual abuse. All children should be protected from sexual aggression but instead, it’s often adult administrators who are protecting the assailants rather than the victims. Girls in particular are being beaten, sexually assaulted, and even raped in school bathroom stalls.

And what are schools doing? Preserving the abuser and delegitimizing the victims. Schools frequently and intentionally withhold the assault of minors from parents, and many of them are failing to comply with state and federal reporting laws. Why? To protect the supposed “minority” LGBT-identifying students who are perpetuating the violence.

And it isn’t just happening in our schools — there is an entire movement within the LGBT community that is promoting violence as a means of revenge. Just two months ago, a trans-identifying woman entered a Christian elementary school and opened fire, slaughtering three nine-year-old children and three staff members. Leading up to the shooting, a “Trans Day of Vengeance” had been planned. Following the shooting, a group called the Trans Revolutionary Action Network issued a statement JUSTIFYING the actions of the shooter, stating that “hate has consequences.”

This was met by support from other LGBT community members and allies, essentially asserting that the so-called suffering of trans-identifying individuals is bound to cause violence.

And the Covenant School shooter is not an outlier. In November 2022, an LGBT night club in Colorado Springs was attacked by a male who identified as non-binary. In Denver, a school was attacked by a gunman who identified as transgender, leaving one student killed and another eight seriously injured.

As Christians, we should not be surprised by the increased violence coming from individuals who refuse to recognize or fear God. And while they blame others, the truth is that rejection of God results in greater depravity. Solomon, the wisest man the world has ever known, described it perfectly: “Do not enter the path of the wicked and do not proceed in the way of evil men. Avoid it, do not pass by it; Turn away from it and pass on. For they cannot sleep unless they do evil; And they are robbed of sleep unless they make someone stumble. For they eat the bread of wickedness and drink the wine of violence” (Proverbs 4:14-17 NASB).

Leftist politicians and media have contributed to the radicalization of the LGBT movement. The ever-increasing instances of privacy violations, violent assaults, and death resulting from the outrage of the LGBT community cannot and should not be tolerated.

Accepting the beliefs of a person is one thing, condoning immoral behavior or violence is entirely different. Something must be done to stop the radicalization of LGBT individuals and to protect children in schools. Let’s begin by allowing God and morality to be taught and embraced by our culture. Obviously, this will require the church to be more intentional at fulfilling Christ’s call to be “salt and light.” Then, we must enforce laws that protect people from violent individuals, and stop children from being exposed to sexualized material or people against their will — and then purposefully hiding the details from their parents.

We are on the verge of losing the next generation. It’s time for biblical morality, common sense, and legal ramifications to be reintroduced to our culture. Let’s protect our children.

AUTHOR

Jody Hice

RELATED ARTICLES:

With Order Making Maryland a Gender Transition Sanctuary, Governor Aids Sex Traffickers

Opposition Grows as Biological Men Continue to Claim Women’s Sports Titles

A Sticky Situation at Cracker Barrel, Not Involving Syrup

Women-Only Spa Must Admit Naked Biological Men, Judge Rules

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Most Americans Say Changing Gender is ‘Morally Wrong’: Poll

Despite the snake oil the enemedia and rogue regime sells you and tells you, most Americans are still rational, logical and moral.

It’s not just morally wrong, it is biologically impossible. Which is why when archaeologist dig up 300,000-year-old human bones (like Lucy) they can tell if it as a man or a woman.

More Americans say changing gender is ‘morally wrong’: poll

While 62% of Americans in 2021 said transgender athletes should be allowed to only compete on “teams that match their birth gender,” that number rose to 69% in 2023.

By Madeleine Hubbard, JTN, June 12, 2023:

More Americans are now saying changing a person’s gender is ‘morally wrong’ and that transgender athletes should only be allowed to compete on teams matching their biological gender, according to a poll released Monday.

In 2021, 51% of Americans said changing one’s gender was ‘morally wrong,’ but two years later, that number rose to 55%, according to a Gallup poll. Fewer people are calling it ‘morally acceptable’ now as well, with 46% in 2021 compared to 43% in 2023.

While 62% of Americans in 2021 said transgender athletes should be allowed to only compete on “teams that match their birth gender,” that number rose to 69% in 2023, the poll also showed. Additionally, two years ago, 34% of people said transgender athletes should be able to play on teams matching their gender identity compared to 26% who said the same in the latest poll.

This poll was conducted May 1-24 with 1,011 adults nationwide and has a 4% margin of error.

Read more.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biological Man Wins Female Cycling Race by FIVE MINUTES

Churches Embrace Pride Month With Drag Queen Story Hour, Queer Proms And Gay Concerts

RELATED VIDEO: You cannot mock God

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Pro-Abortion PAC to Spend $10M+ to Boost Kamala’s Image in 2024

One of the nation’s largest pro-abortion PACs has plans to spend more than ten million dollars to prop up worthless Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 election, according to Breitbart News.

EMILY’s List — an organization whose goal is to elect pro-abortion Democrat women to public office — told Politico over the weekend about its plans to promote the epically incompetent VP, whose approval ratings have teetered around the low-40s and mid-30s for much of President Biden’s first term.

“Such an investment in support of a sitting vice president is politically unprecedented. And it reflects the lack of broader efforts that have been made to date to help bolster the vice president amid persistently low approval ratings,” the report states. “It also underscores the growing recognition that Harris may play an outsized role in what is sure to be a tough election. Republican presidential candidates have made it clear they will be using the specter of a Harris presidency as a way to hurt Joe Biden’s chances at reelection, particularly by raising questions about his age and capacity for the job,” the report continues.

President of EMILY’s List Laphonza Butler told the outlet that the PAC wants to “push back against the massive misinformation and disinformation that’s been directed towards her since she’s been elected.” The PAC previously supported Harris in 2020 after she was announced as Biden’s running mate, and Butler also helped guide Harris’s failed presidential bid while working for a leading California political consulting firm.

The funding announcement comes after Axios reported in May that Harris was “quietly forming a small, outside group of women allies to help amplify her role as the White House’s leading warrior” against Republican-led laws protecting unborn babies from abortion. A Democrat official familiar with the situation told the outlet that 14 women from across the abortion industry and other groups met with Harris, including Butler for EMILY’s List, Alexis McGill Johnson of Planned Parenthood, and NARAL’s Mini Timmaraju.


EMILY’s List (EL)

124 Known Connections

Formally, there are only three requirements a candidate must meet in order to be eligible for support from EMILY’s List: The candidate must be a woman, she must be a Democrat, and she must support unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand. EL has occasionally withdrawn its support from women expressing even the barest opposition to any abortion-related “right.” U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana), for instance, lost EL’s backing in 1997 after she voted in favor of a ban on the practice commonly known as “partial-birth abortion.”

Consistently accusing Republicans of conducting “a sustained assault on the right to choose and advances for women,” EL affirms: “We hold the GOP accountable. We don’t just help our candidates respond when they are attacked—we define their GOP opponents before they can hide their records.”

To learn more about Emily’s List, click here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Admin Arrests Donald Trump

Antifa Planning ‘Action’ Against Trump Supporters at Courthouse

Blinken May Be Subpoenaed For Role in Undermining Hunter Biden Story

WH Propagandist Jean-Pierre Warned for Breaking Hatch Act

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

GOP Senator Demands Investigation Into California University’s Reported $220 Million China Campus Deal

A Republican senator is calling for an investigation into the University of California, Berkeley’s reported multimillion dollar deal with a Chinese university, according to a letter obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Indiana Republican Todd Young urged the Department of Education (DOE) to investigate whether any U.S. laws were violated related to Berkeley’s reported $220 million joint venture with China’s “state-owned” Tsinghua University to build a 1.7 million-square-foot research campus in Shenzhen, known as Tsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute (TBSI), according to the letter sent to Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona Friday. According to The Daily Beast, who broke the story in May 2023, Berkeley allegedly failed to report the foreign funding for the TBSI project to the Department of Education in possible violation of the law, which Berkeley disputes.

“The longevity, scope, and origin of the funding is concerning,” Young’s letter states, “but what that funding provided to the Chinese is equally, if not more so, concerning from a national security perspective.”

The Daily Beast reported that, between 2014 and 2018, the TBSI project allegedly received $220 million from the Shenzhen government as well as a $19 million investment from Tsinghua University that was backed by a grant from a Chinese state-owned enterprise.

Furthermore, Berkeley allegedly failed to report any of these foreign funds to the DOE prior to being contacted for comment by The Daily Beast in February 2023, according to the outlet.

Young’s letter asks the DOE to investigate whether or not Berkeley may have violated “existing U.S. law with regards to the disclosure of foreign gifts.”

In May 2023, Dan Mogulof, assistant vice chancellor of Berkeley, told the DCNF that although the university had indeed signed a “Master Affiliation Agreement” with Tsinghua University in 2016 that “arranged” for $22 million in “sponsored research” and “startup operations,” Berkeley has allegedly never received, nor benefitted from, a $220 million investment “made by the Shenzhen government, or any other entity in China.”

“UC Berkeley has no ownership of any of the facilities in Shenzhen and no agreements or plans to receive ownership interest in them,” Mogulof told the DCNF. “Therefore, UC Berkeley is not required to report this funding under Department of Education Section 117 guidelines.”

Young also expressed concern that the Chinese government may have “received other, more tangible, benefits from its arrangement with UC Berkeley,” according to his letter.

Between 2012 and 2021, Berkeley allegedly received over $4 billion in federal research funding from the Department of Defense and other government agencies, according to Young’s letter.

Therefore, TBSI may have allegedly benefited from “competencies, experience and expertise funded by the American taxpayer,” which China could have subsequently exploited, Young’s letter claims.

“Recent reporting calls into question the adequacy of existing guardrails to protect the security and integrity of American institutions of higher education from the malign influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese government,” Young’s letter states.

Berkeley’s Mogulof told the DCNF that the university “takes concerns about national security very seriously” and will review “past agreements and actions involving or connected to the TBSI to reconfirm that all required reporting and compliance has occurred.”

DOE did not respond immediately to the DCNF’s request for comment and The Daily Beast declined to comment.

AUTHOR

PHILIP LENCZYCKI

Daily Caller News Foundation investigative reporter, political journalist, and China watcher. Twitter: @LenczyckiPhilip

RELATED ARTICLES:

Chinese Intel Arm Quietly Operates ‘Service Centers’ In 7 US Cities

UC Berkeley Failed To Disclose $220 Million Deal That Benefitted Sanctioned Chinese Companies: REPORT

Communist Chinese Propaganda In U.S. School Textbooks

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Critically Thinking about Wind and Solar

Are there any scientifically proven NET benefits from either?


This will be brief, as I’ll cut to the chase.

A journalist recently asked me the following thoughtful question:

“I’m working on an article that looks at the climate impacts of wind energy. There are some studies linked below (and you likely know others), that show that drawing kinetic energy from the wind at large scale will have an adverse impact on climate.

“Proponents of wind energy insist that human impacts on the climate are so catastrophic that we need to spend trillions to convert electrical generation to wind and solar. So, why are these (and other) negative impacts on the climate from wind being mostly ignored or dismissed as trivial? As wind energy spreads further and wider, these liabilities will get substantially worse.”

My answer:

You are asking a legitimate question — which has only one answer:

Wind and solar energy are NOT being promoted for any NET BENEFITS to ratepayers, taxpayers, citizens, businesses, the environment, or the climate!

The proof of that is that there are NO scientifically-proven wind or solar energy NET BENEFITS to ratepayers, taxpayers, citizens, businesses, the environment, or the climate!

For example, please read my powerful, short Report regarding the wind energy part, which includes the studies you cited, plus MANY more! Regarding Solar there are multiple major concerns that are almost never properly addressed in state regulations or local ordinances.

I’ll repeat the key part:

Wind and solar energy are NOT being promoted for any NET BENEFITS to ratepayers, taxpayers, citizens, businesses, the environment, or the climate!

The proof of that is that there are NO scientifically-proven wind or solar energy NET BENEFITS to ratepayers, taxpayers, citizens, businesses, the environment, or the climate!

Instead, wind and solar promotion is:

  1. about virtue signaling,
  2. taking advantage of the public’s technical illiteracy,
  3. exploiting the weakness that many local communities are blinded by the money,
  4. optimizing the reality that many citizens defer to authority,
  5. leveraging the fact that critical thinking has become a lost skill,
  6. evidence of the powerful influence of special-interest lobbyists on our legislators,
  7. etc.

‘Nuff said.

©2023. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Biggest Environmental Scandal In The World


Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Joe Biden Creates New LGBT Coordinator to ‘Address the Growing Threat’ of Restrictions on Porn Books in Schools

The Democrats obscene obsession with sexualizing our children is pure evil.

PURE EVIL: Joe Biden Creates New LGBT Coordinator to “Address the Growing Threat” that Book Bans of Porn Books in Schools Poses on Society

by Jim Hoft Jun. 9, 2023:

For years now Democrats have been pushing pornographic cartoon books into American classrooms. Several of the book include drawings of children and adults in sex acts.

Chelsea Clinton happens to be a huge fan of porn in classrooms.

In the past two years several states have voted to remove these books from the classrooms. They believe children should not be exposed to pornography in grade school and high school on the public dime.

Read more.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Students Revolt Against “Pride” Month Spirit Day at Massachusetts School; Glare at Teachers, Tear Down Signs, Wear Red, White and Blue, Chant “U.S.A. Are My Pronouns!”

Oregon Bans Christians From Adopting Children

Biden Declares LGBT Community Most Courageous He’s Ever Seen, ‘Bravest and Most Inspiring People I’ve Ever Known’

KILLING AMERICA: Statue of Revolutionary War Hero Removed From City Hall in New York State Capitol (WATCH)

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Reclaiming the Biblical Rainbow

Whether you’re browsing through a clothing aisle of Target or taking a walk through your neighborhood — especially during the month of June — it’s likely you’ll run into a symbol plastered on t-shirts or waving on flags: the rainbow. What do you immediately associate with the bold colors of red, orange, yellow, green, indigo, and violet? Most would likely say LGBTQ Pride. It is easily identifiable due to the infiltration of Pride merchandise in stores, schools, and neighborhoods.

Within the last 50 years, LGBTQ+ culture has adopted the symbol to represent sexual identity, and it has become a staple in the Pride movement. The materialized association we make between the God-ordained rainbow with a so-called “pride” for sexual identity has become normalized as the symbol is often paired with the image of a same-sex couple or phrases like “love is love.”

How did this association come about? Who decided on the counterfeit rainbow as the staple image to represent the LGBTQ community?

The answer lies in the late 1970s when San Francisco artist and drag performer Gilbert Baker was asked to create a symbol representing the gay community. The Department of Mental Health claims that, “Baker collaborated with his friend Lynn Segerblom” to “design” the rainbow flag. The only difference from their design and God’s was two more colors: hot pink and turquoise. Although these two colors have since been removed — and other renditions of the flag continue to occur regularly — the design made its debut at the Gay Freedom Day Parade in San Francisco in 1978.

According to History.com, “The most commonly used image for the burgeoning gay rights movement was the pink triangle,” a symbol that was pinned to people who identified as homosexual during World War II by Nazis. “Using a symbol with such a dark and painful past was never an option for Baker,” so instead he chose the rainbow as it was “meant to represent togetherness.” Each color maintained a significance: hot pink for sex, red for life, orange for healing, yellow for sunlight, green for nature, turquoise for magic and art, indigo for serenity, and violet for spirit.

Since his creation of the rainbow Pride flag, Gilbert has been recognized by political leaders and praised for the strides he made in the movement. In 2016, former President Barack Obama presented Baker with a hand-dyed rainbow flag. Baker spent the remainder of his life “push[ing] boundaries and gender norms,” until his death in 2017.

With June being the designated “Pride Month,” the LGBTQ community and supporters push the sale of as much rainbow gear as possible. In preparation for the month, conservative leaders have spoken up, calling people to take the rainbow symbol back.

“The rainbow is and always will be a sign of the covenant God made with his people,” wrote conservative author and influencer David Harris. “The woke mob may try to twist its meaning, but we won’t let their foolishness prevail. It’s time to reclaim the rainbow for His purpose!!”

Similarly, pro-life advocate and author Abby Johnson posted some “reminders” on her social media page, encouraging her followers to remember the rainbow’s true meaning.

“I will not stop enjoying rainbows just because man has decided to attempt to usurp it,” she wrote. “God defines marriage because He created it. We don’t get to argue with Him about it or throw a tantrum. He made marriage, He gets to set the terms. It’s between a man and a woman.”

Why are these conservative leaders calling for people to take the rainbow back? What is so significant about different wavelengths of light striking water droplets, resulting in seven colors forming an arch? Let’s go back to some of the earliest days of creation to answer this question.

In Genesis 6, we are told that as the human population grew, so did their wickedness. Humans were so corrupt, that “every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5). It says the Lord regretted creating humans. Within just five chapters of creation’s origin story, God went from nodding in approval and calling his people good to feeling remorseful over his creation. When Adam and Eve took a bite of the forbidden fruit, sin entered the world and with it came separation from God: an unbearable consequence that all people deserve.

From the beginning of time, fleshly desires took over the human race and people turned their back on God. So, God sent a great flood in order to “put an end to all people” (Genesis 6:13), except for one family, headed by a man named Noah, who “found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6:8). The fate of the human race fell to the obedience of this one man.

As the story that we learned in Sunday school goes, God ordered Noah to build an ark and spared him and his family from the flood. In Genesis 9:11, He establishes a promise, saying, “Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.” To seal this promise, God explained the significance of the symbol of his covenant.

“I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth” (Genesis 9:13-16).

From these few verses, we learn that in God’s mercy, he decided to give humanity a second chance to live in harmony with him, and he set a reminder in the sky.

If the original meaning of the rainbow was meant to represent God’s promise to never wipe out his people with a flood again, how come it is now associated with sexual orientation and gender fluidity? Doesn’t it seem ironic that a movement rooted in sexual anarchy — which stands in opposition to the Word of God — uses a biblical symbol to represent its anti-biblical ideology?

Baker designed a version of the rainbow as the LGBTQ symbol “because he saw flags as the most powerful symbol of pride.” As Christians, the rainbow represents something completely different and much more sacred: a symbol of hope. Hope of an everlasting life with a Just and Merciful Creator, despite our temporary and wretched state. As author of “God’s Covenant with the Earth” Peter Harris pointed out, “God’s covenant with Noah was a commitment to maintain the inherent relationship between Creator and creation.” Nothing can separate us from his love. There is room for forgiveness, and our nation must fight for a story of redemption.

As Family Research Council’s Senior Fellow for Biblical Worldview and Strategic Engagement Joseph Backholm put it, “It seems significant that the LGBT rainbow is a counterfeit of a real rainbow because everything about the sexual revolution is a counterfeit of good things God created. Satan has always been in the habit of taking good things and modifying them slightly so they have similarities to good things but are not good things.”

As we walk through the month of June, let us heed the instruction Peter wrote to God’s elect and remember to stand firm in our faith and convictions. “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).

AUTHOR

Abigail Olsson

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The Climate Lobby Is Openly Plotting To Steal Our Freedom

During her May 15 speech to The Beyond Growth Conference held by the European Parliament, European Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen, citing a 1970s de-growth plan published by the Club of Rome, made reference to the European Union’s “social market economy” five times in a span of less than 150 words.

A “social market economy,” of course, is a reference to the sort of central economic planning engaged in by authoritarian socialist governments throughout history. “And this is exactly why we put forward our European Green Deal,” Von Der Leyen told the conference. “Building a 21st century clean-energy circular economy is one of the most significant economic challenges of our times.”

The agenda of the Beyond Growth Conference focused on devising plans to manage the destruction of economic growth that is a centerpiece of the real agenda of the energy transition. Limitations on energy minerals and other resources required by wind, solar and electric vehicles, and on the ability to continue printing trillions of debt-funded dollars and Euros in a vain attempt to subsidize them to the scale required to displace fossil fuels inevitably means the forcing of common citizens in the Western world to scale down their standards of living and limit their mobility to meet the net-zero by 2050 goals being dictated at the global level. Thus, the need for the EU to move “beyond growth” and back to a more primitive mode of living.

Rising recognition and acceptance of these limitations, along with the success by Western governments in enforcing authoritarian edicts on their populations during the COVID-19 pandemic, is now leading to a rapid evolution in the overarching narrative and talking points related to the energy transition. The former energy transition narrative of “we will scale up renewables and EVs and you won’t even notice the difference in your daily lives” has been transformed to “we will scale everything down and you will just have to live with it” with stunning speed during 2023.

report titled “The Urban Mobility Scorecard Tool: Benchmarking the Transition to Sustainable Urban Mobility” issued by the World Economic Forum in May is another great example. Based largely upon a 2017 UC Davis report titled “3 Revolutions in Urban Transportation,” the WEF report advocates for authoritarian governments to force the reduction of the numbers of vehicles on the road from the current global estimate of 1.45 billion to just 500 million. The UC Davis report went largely unnoticed in 2017 because the climate alarmist lobby had not been sufficiently emboldened at that time to publicly discuss its real goals. But that mask is now coming off.

The authors of the WEF report claim citizens who can no longer own cars would still be allowed to move away from their planned cities of the future, but only via “shared transport,” i.e. electric buses and a new network of thousands of miles of high-speed rail. But California has clearly shown that thoughts of building a huge network of tens of thousands of miles of new high-speed rail in the western world in the next 27 years is a complete fantasy. California’s own high-speed rail boondoggle, originally proposed 27 years ago in 1996, has seen its budget blossom from $8 billion to over $130 billion, and still hasn’t managed to lay a single mile of rail.

The real world simply does not conform itself to fantasies like this plan, and everyone at the WEF is fully aware of that reality. Thus, what this plan really amounts to is a scheme to enable the speeding-up of implementation of socialist/authoritarian governments in the West to enforce the new restrictions on the lives of common citizens, an effort that began to accelerate during the COVID pandemic. Authoritarian governments always endeavor to restrict the free flow of information outside of approved propaganda, and restricting mobility is a key means of achieving that goal.

As we see the EU and the WEF now freely admitting, economic de-growth and forcing citizens of Western nations to live smaller, less prosperous lives are the real end goals of this energy transition. The narrative has officially shifted, and we would do well to take them at their word.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

DAVID BLACKMON

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

RELATED ARTICLES:

National Geographic Says Climate Change Is ‘Greatest Threat to Humans’ As They Fly Around The World on Private Jets

VIJAY JAYARAJ: The World Is Running Away From Unreliable Green Energy

DAVID BLACKMON: Dems Roar Right Past Gas Stove Ban For Even Bigger Goals

Green industrialization greatly increases CO2 emissions

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.