Tag Archive for: LGBTQE+

NATO Has Become the Military Wing of a Globalist Power Structure

NATO promotes the self-destruction of all nations and a depopulated world.

One of NATO’s primary missions is to spread instability throughout the world, using the military-industrial complex to bully and intimidate countries non-compliant with a militant anti-family anti-God agenda flowing out of Western capitals and promoted by Western media.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg asserted on Friday the alliance’s commitment to defending the rights of LGBTQ individuals, aligning with numerous Western officials, institutions, and organizations in commemorating the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, and Transphobia.

Author Jose Nino summed it up nicely in a piece for Big League Politics:

“The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is committed to spreading degenerate values abroad.  With Russia seemingly making major gains against NATO-backed Ukrainian forces in Eastern Ukraine, NATO leaders have been engaging in bizarre virtue signaling to divert attention away from the abject failure of this proxy war against Russia.

“Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 24, 2022, NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg has been particularly vocal about NATO’s values and why it’s an institution that has to be trusted despite its long track record of causing instability abroad — from Serbia all the way to Libya.”

On Friday, May 17, Stoltenberg, reaffirmed NATO’s commitment to LGBTQ+ values by arrogantly proclaiming in a post to X the current Western value system and what it is based upon:

Nino reminds us of why NATO was founded in the first place, in the wake of World War II in 1949. It was to counter the Soviet Union’s influence on the European continent.

“However, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO has worked to remake the world in America’s increasingly dysfunctional image. Its interventions in the Balkans all the way to Libya have brought nothing but harm and instability.”

NATO is no longer seen by most nations of the world as a defensive alliance.

NATO launched offensive wars against Yugoslavia in 1999 and Libya in 2011, as well as its protracted occupation of Afghanistan, leaving the country no freer and no better off in 2021 than when it was invaded 20 years prior, but rather much more dangerous with billions of U.S. and Western military weapons in the hands of the Taliban terrorists.

But even more destructive is the fact that NATO teams up with an army of neo-Marxist and Cultural Marxist nonprofits to promote values antithetical to those found in the Bible, including gay “marriage,” abortion on demand up to birth, and children being able to choose their own gender, along with the whole idea of gender as a social construct meant to “oppress” the sexual deviants and mentally confused. Why do they promote ideas so destructive of society? Because they know no nation can survive for long without moral restraints and some sort of devotion to a higher authority above that of carnal man.

Nino adds:

“In effect, any country that gets in bed with NATO catches the STD of multiculturalism, sexual degeneracy, and societal decay. More importantly, NATO is an entangling military alliance with a crusading ideology that is a threat to world peace.“

No nation can survive without strong men. Transgendered females (biological men who pretend to be women) running around in skirts do not tend to make good military officers, but that’s exactly the type of behavior that is now being promoted and encouraged by the military forces of the U.S., Europe, Australia, Canada and Israel. This group of nations will all suffer catastrophic defeats at the hands of Russia and China if they continue with their plans to poke the bear and create a World War III scenario while at the same time indulging the lowest form of human behavior.

At the heart of this Western globalist agenda lies a demonic attempt to depopulate the world in accordance with the principles laid out in the Georgia Guidestones and other globalist screeds. Because everyone knows that gay marriages don’t produce children. Emasculated, mutilated and transgendered young people don’t reproduce, either.

Any nation that is truly free and independent should immediately exit this military alliance and even non-members should totally free themselves from NATO’s Luciferian psychological clutches. Because NATO’s psychopathic leaders base their speech and their actions on moral alchemy, warmongering and a Satanic lust for power over the free minds of people everywhere.

©2024. Leo Hohmann. All rights reserved.

UK: 74% of Transgender Prisoners Found to be Sex Offenders or Violent Criminals

Last year, the UK government-staffed organization — the Pride in Prison & Probation (PIPP) group — which advances an aggressive LGBTQ agenda, called it “transphobic” to discuss the issue of protecting women in prisons from biological males. Now comes the news that “nearly three-quarters of all transgender prison inmates in Britain were convicted of sexual offences or other violent crimes.” It should go without saying that women should not be put in harm’s way for the sake of political correctness; but this is not clear to those who value “gender affirmation” more than the safety of women.

Former prison governor Rhona Hotchkiss states below that “the vast majority of men who identify as transgender in prison did not do so before they came into contact with the justice system.” In other words, these biological males are perverts with nefarious intentions, which should have been obvious.

Last year, after many unfortunate assaults, the UK finally stopped allowing “transgender women with male genitalia…to be held in mainstream women’s prisons.” But of course it wasn’t the trans activists from the Pride in Prison & Probation (PIPP) group and their ilk who suffered the consequences of their own destructive activism.

74 Per Cent of UK Trans Prisoners Are Sex Offenders or Violent Criminals

by Kurt Zindulka, Breitbart, February 28, 2024:

Nearly three-quarters of all transgender prison inmates in Britain were convicted of sexual offences or other violent crimes, which campaigners say demonstrates the dangers of housing biological males in female prisons.

According to Ministry of Justice figures, 74 per cent of British transgender prisoners, or 181 out of 244, were convicted of sex offences including rape and child sexual assaults. The data, reported by The Telegraph, goes on to say that currently 144 biologically male transgender prisoners are being housed in male prisons in Britain compared to five being housed in female jails.

The figures were revealed after a whistleblower complained of a violent male claiming to be transgender was put in a female prison. “She was not huge but very athletic and very strong and had all the physical features of a man. She was a bully and was very threatening and intimidating,” the insider said.

“The belief that she should have been housed in a male prison was unanimous, not just among the prisoners but also the staff,” she added.

Commenting on the need for prisoners to be separated by sex, former prison governor Rhona Hotchkiss said: “It is always an issue to have males who identify as women in women’s prisons. It’s not necessarily always the physical threat that they experience but the re-traumatisation because many women in prison are already traumatised at the hands of men. They are also faced with constant gaslighting when they are forced to call these men ‘she’.

“The vast majority of men who identify as transgender in prison did not do so before they came into contact with the justice system.”…

Continue reading.



TRANS-TERROR: Lakewood Church Shooter Identified As Transgender Immigrant

Ohio Becomes 23rd State to Protect Minors from the Transgender Industry

Feminism Is the Mother of Transgenderism

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

There Can’t be a ‘Trans Genocide’ — Because ‘Trans’ People Don’t Exist

Much as our esteemed psychological profession defines “gender dysphoria,” there’s also a phenomenon known as “species dysphoria.” I do understand that among mental-health practitioners it’s known as “Species Identity Disorder” (or “clinical lycanthropy”), but give it time. “Gender dysphoria” used to be “Gender Identity Disorder” (and should be “Sexual Identity Disorder”) until that was deemed “stigmatizing” to the disordered.

Whatever you call it, however, just as gender dysphoria involves the sense that one is stuck in the body of the “wrong” sex, species dysphoria involves the sense that one is stuck in the body of the “wrong” species. Examples of people claiming animal status were Texas girl “Wolfie Blackheart,” Norwegian woman “Nano” (who claimed she was a cat) and members of the groups known as “otherkin,” “therians” and “furries.”

What percentage of these people are just role-playing or looking for attention, and how many actually believe they’re animals, is not the point. It is, rather, that virtually all of us recognize this as, depending on the case, either a psychological or spiritual/cultural problem. We also know that you can’t be “trans-species” because changing your species is impossible; a corollary of this is that since trans-species creatures do not exist, they cannot be driven to extinction.

This comes to mind with yet another accusation that normal people are perpetrating a “trans genocide,” in this case because the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles will prohibit designer “genders” on driver’s licenses and will insist, once again, that only a person’s sex (i.e., male or female) be on them.

Yet in reality, the activists thus claiming have tipped their hand. That is, if we said that the racial descriptor “black” couldn’t be on government documents because being black is not a real physical state of being, the accusations would be, first, that the act would be discriminatory. The second accusation is to the point here, however:

We’d hear we were crazy for denying objective physical reality. Since black people exist, we could rightly be sized up for straitjackets.

So what’s telling about those I correctly call MUSS (Made-up Sexual Status, aka “transgender”) activists is that they, quite instinctively, don’t even think to accuse us of insanity.

They may say we’re bigots.

Or “transphobes.”

Or they may accuse us of “genocide.”

But telling us we’re simply crazy for denying an objective reality never occurs to the MUSS crew (though it may become a strategy if enough of them read this piece). This is because objectively speaking, we’re not denying an objective reality. They, not we, are the crazy ones.

To further illustrate MUSS activists’ tacit admissions, consider that unicorns do not exist except in the imagination. Therefore, they cannot be driven to extinction, except in a metaphorical sense of purging them from human imagination and the works (e.g., fiction, encyclopedias) in which they’re found.

Similarly, that MUSS individuals believe the mere denial of their existence constitutes “genocide” — the elimination of their group — is tacit acknowledgment that their group (as they demand it be conceptualized) exists only in the imagination.

This truth is acknowledged, too, in so many words. MUSS-enabling social scientists often point out that “sex” and “gender” are not synonymous, that while the former concerns biological status, “gender” (which shouldn’t be applied to humans, only words) is your perception of what you are. This is why scores of “genders” have already been “defined”: There can be as many perceptions as there are people.

But crazy is as crazy does. The problem here is that cultural insanity is contagious, with too many “normal” people, to a great extent, viewing MUSS individuals as they want to be considered and not as they should be. To wit:

We should not waver in embracing the truth that “trans” people do not exist.

Yes, people with psychological problems exist.

Social contagion exists.

Sexual fetishes such as autogynephilia exist.

But as ex-MUSS individual Alan Finch told The Guardian in 2004:

Their [the MUSS activists’] language is illusory. You fundamentally can’t change sex…. The surgery doesn’t alter you genetically. It’s genital mutilation. My “vagina” was just the bag of my scrotum. It’s like a pouch, like a kangaroo. What’s scary is you still feel like you have a penis when you’re sexually aroused. It’s like phantom limb syndrome. It’s all been a terrible misadventure. I’ve never been a woman, just Alan.

In reality, “transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists,” The Guardian wrote, summing up Finch’s warning.

And Finch’s observation about “illusory” language, do note, is something normal people must be mindful of. The side that defines the vocabulary of a debate, wins the debate. This is why I identify the individuals and agenda in question with the acronym “MUSS” — and it is why I implore you to join me in doing so. Using the sexual devolutionaries’ language enables their movement.

In truth, the MUSS agenda must be completely and totally eradicated. It’s one thing, and is a moral imperative, to treat people nobly enduring Sexual Identity Disorder with compassion and offer them counseling. It’s quite another to nod along and mainstream and normalize a delusion that is undermining our society and mutilating children’s grasp of reality (and sometimes their bodies). Such complicity in evil is evil.

Unfortunately, this counsel bumps up against that very conservative instinct to be “reasonable” and “compromise,” to say, “Live whatever life you want; just don’t shove it in my face — and leave the kids out of it.” Yet as I think C.S. Lewis put it, this is like having a fleet of ships and saying that you don’t care how they function as long as they don’t crash into each other. Of course, though, if they don’t function properly, they may not be able to avoid crashing into each other.

So it is here. The typical conservative appeal to the MUSS crew is like saying, “You can be mentally ill, just not too mentally ill. You can jump off that cliff — just be sure to stop halfway down so you don’t land on a child’s head.”

Apropos to this, G.K. Chesterton had something very profound to say about this attitude of compromise in the Illustrated London News in 1924. “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives,” he wrote. “The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins.”

King Solomon was not making a serious proposal when he offered to split the baby; he was cleverly revealing a poseur. Are we just poseurs to principle? If not, we can’t try to split the baby of sanity, but must slay the demon child of sexual devolutionary delusion.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe or Gettr or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Copyright 2024. Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: South Carolina Advances Bill Protecting Minors from Gender Transition Procedures

RELATED PODCAST: Jennifer Lahl on the Detransitioner Movement and Influences

Opponents Call SAFE Acts ‘Extremist,’ but 5 Veto Overrides Suggest Otherwise

The Ohio state legislature on Wednesday became the fifth to override a governor’s veto to enact a law protecting minors from gender transition procedures. With every successful veto override, claims of “extremism” lodged against the bill appear more and more far-fetched.

Accusations of extremism began with the very first Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act, passed by the Arkansas legislature in 2021 (HB 1570). The bill sailed through the House (70-22) on March 10 and the Senate (28-7) on March 29. Despite these wide margins, Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Alphonso David complained on March 13 of that year, “The furious pace of these bills shows that hateful anti-equality groups across the country and extremist legislators alike realize that equality is gaining momentum.” After then-Governor Asa Hutchinson vetoed the bill, the Arkansas legislature responded by overriding the veto (72-25 in the House, 25-8 in the Senate) on April 6.

The campaign to protect children accelerated in 2023, when 20 state legislatures joined those of Arkansas (2021), Alabama (2022), and Arizona (2022) in passing laws to protect children from gender transition procedures (although the Ohio veto override occurred this month). As the movement grew, so did the opposition. When Tennessee enacted a bill in March, a coalition of left-wing groups including the ACLU and Lambda Legal claimed that they had “chosen fearmongering, misrepresentations, intimidation, and extremist politics over the rights of families and the lives of transgender youth.”

“Extremist, anti-LGBTQ+ politicians and their allies are waging a dangerous and cruel misinformation campaign that seeks to stigmatize not only gender-affirming care but transgender and non-binary people as well,” claimed HRC’s new president Kelley Robinson. “Through fear-mongering and propaganda, extremist leaders are working overtime to manufacture panic, rile up their base, and coax them into opposing healthcare for transgender people.”

Left-wing groups were not above indulging in a little fear-mongering of their own. “Across the country, anti-transgender extremists and politicians are putting the lives and well-being of transgender people at risk,” said Movement Advancement Project Senior Policy Researcher Logan Casey, “by attempting to outlaw access to best practice medical care not only for youth but for all transgender people.” No states have passed laws to ban gender transition procedures for adults because, although these procedures harm adults too, society recognizes that adults are competent and therefore free to make their own decisions.

Nevertheless, “extremism” remained the buzzword across the left-wing activist-sphere, especially when a governor’s veto raised the bar for passage and gave activist groups time to pile on additional pressure. “For the extremist groups that are pushing these laws, the guard rails are off,” insisted Campaign for Southern Equality executive director Rev. Jasmine Beach-Ferrara of Louisiana’s SAFE Act-style bill. GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis claimed that “Ohio’s extremist lawmakers inexplicably refused facts, expert testimony, and deeply personal pleas” by overriding the governor’s veto.

Despite the pressure and accusations of extremism, four state legislatures have overridden their governor’s vetoes in the past 12 months. On March 29, 2023, the Kentucky Senate (29-8) and House (76-23) voted to override Governor Andy Beshear’s (D) veto of a bill to protect minors from gender transition procedures, which also included protections for women’s sports and parental rights. On July 18, the Louisiana House (76-23) and Senate (28-11) voted to override then- Governor John Bel Edwards’s veto of the Stop Harming Our Kids Act, which told doctors to do just what the title said. On August 16, the North Carolina House (74-45) and Senate (27-18) voted to override Governor Roy Cooper’s (D) veto of that state’s bill to protect minors from gender transition procedures.

Then, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine (R) vetoed that state’s SAFE Act at the end of the year (December 29), the first Republican governor to oppose such a measure since Hutchinson in 2021. Almost immediately, nearly every other statewide official criticized the veto, and legislators in both chambers announced plans to override. The House overrode the veto 65-27 on January 10, and the Senate overrode the veto 24-8 on January 24, 2024.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins extracted a lesson for governors from the veto override trend. “Given that five legislatures have overridden gubernatorial vetoes of legislation protecting minors from the transgender activists pushing experimental drugs and surgeries,” he remarked, “any governor who vetoes these SAFE Act-type laws is either politically tone-deaf or being influenced by those who profit from this morally devastating, but financially lucrative, industry.”

Another implication of the trend is that protecting minors from harmful, experimental gender transition procedures is not an “extremist” position, as its opponents keep on insisting. This is because of the role that executive vetoes play in America’s system of checks and balances.

In Federalist Paper 73, Alexander Hamilton explained that an executive veto “furnishes an additional security against the enaction of improper laws. It establishes a salutary check upon the legislative body, calculated to guard the community against the effects of faction, precipitancy, or of any impulse unfriendly to the public good, which may happen to influence a majority of that body.”

Hamilton was defending the veto power given to the U.S. president under the not-yet-ratified U.S. Constitution, but his reasoning is general enough to apply to gubernatorial vetoes against state legislation, too.

The “propriety” of a veto, Hamilton added, turns “upon the supposition that the legislature will not be infallible.” He articulated three general scenarios in which a veto could serve as a useful check. First, “the love of power may sometimes betray it into a disposition to encroach upon the rights of other members of the government.” Second, “a spirit of faction may sometimes pervert its deliberations.” Third, “impressions of the moment may sometimes hurry it into measures which itself, on maturer reflexion, would condemn.”

While the first scenario is not relevant to the SAFE Act debate, claims of “extremism” certainly suggest a “spirit of faction,” and they may also suggest the legislature itself would change its mind upon “maturer reflection.” The multiple vetoes issued against SAFE Acts provide case studies to see whether these applications prove true.

If the SAFE Acts were imprudent bills that legislatures passed too hastily, we would expect to find many legislators switching their votes during the veto override attempts, perhaps even enough that the bill would fail to reach whatever supermajority threshold was required. That is emphatically not what we find. The Arkansas bill lost one vote between its first passage and the veto override. The Kentucky bill lost one vote in the Senate but gained one in the House. The Louisiana bill lost one vote in the Senate, while four House members switched their votes two-and-two, canceling each other out. The North Carolina bill actually gained two votes. In Ohio, no legislators switched their votes.

Thus, after hundreds of legislators voted on these bills, and then voted on them again after they had been vetoed, the net effect was a change of zero votes (excluding different vote totals caused by absent legislators). These five bills lost a total of five votes and gained a total of five votes between first passage and the veto override.

The other claim raised against the SAFE Act is that it is the product of an extremist faction — in this case, its detractors allege, having swept through nearly the entire Republican Party. This claim would be more plausible if all the legislators who voted for the SAFE Act were of the same party, but that is not what we find. In Louisiana, multiple Democrats in the Senate voted for the bill both on initial passage and in overriding the governor’s veto — a governor of their own party. In North Carolina, two House Democrats actually switched their votes during the veto override, to approve the bill against the wishes of their own party’s governor.

For that matter, the North Carolina legislature would not have even taken up a SAFE Act-style bill if not for the extremism of Democrats in the chamber. Earlier in the year, Representative Tricia Cotham had switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party because her fellow Democrats were bullying her over introducing a school choice bill. Her party switch gave the Republicans the supermajority they needed to advance legislation the governor would likely veto.

There is a tendency today to view things like veto power and legislative supermajorities as simply a matter of who has power to do what. Succumbing to that tendency would be a mistake, because it capitulates to a Marxist view of politics that sees everything through the lens of power dynamics. Sometimes, the usual political divisions break down, and government officials make decisions based upon what they believe is best for society, a certain group in society, or at least for their reelection chances. As noted above, some Democratic legislators voted for SAFE Act-style bills, while some Republican governors vetoed them. The veto even exerts a restraining influence in the far-Left, one-party state of California, where in September Governor Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed an anti-parent bill. The more statesmanlike use of the veto propounded by Hamilton may not always exert itself, but it still plays a role too large to dismiss.

An executive veto serves to “increase the chances in favor of the community against the passing of bad laws, through haste, inadvertence, or design,” said Hamilton. “The oftener the measure is brought under examination, the greater the diversity in the situations of those who are to examine it, the less must be the danger of those errors which flow from want of due deliberation, or of those missteps which proceed from the contagion of some common passion or interest.”

SAFE Act-style bills have now been considered a great many times across a great many states. In just a three-year span, nearly half of all U.S. state legislatures (23, to be exact) have seen fit to implement protections for minors suffering gender dysphoria, who lack the long-term vision and decision-making prudence to clearly see the harms of irreversible gender transition procedures. Each of those states conducted extensive hearings, featuring testimony from both sides of the debate, and were exposed to public input (including rather rude protests from the Left) on the bills’ potential merits and effects. There has been no lack of examination or due deliberation.

In almost every state, a supermajority of the legislature (often two-thirds, or even three-fourths) voted in favor of the measures. In five states, a supermajority enacted the bills of a governor’s veto. Such overwhelming support, almost by definition, implies that these bills enjoy support from more than just an “extremist” faction, notwithstanding the slanders of their detractors.


Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 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.

For Just $83,140, Princeton Will Train Your Son to Be a Drag Queen

It costs a staggering $83,140 to send a student to Princeton University, and that’s just for one year. Four years of this august Ivy League school will set you back a cool $332,560, and just think: for that kind of money, you could have bought a brand-new Corvette convertible every year and had some spare change left over.

But Princeton has its benefits: you may not be able to tool around in the glorious sunshine with the wind blowing your hair back, but for all that dough, Princeton will take your thoughtful, intelligent son and turn him into a prancing, preening, children’s-innocence-stealing drag queen. And they will do that in just one year, in case you can’t afford all four. Hey, it’s worth $83,140 to get in step with the times, isn’t it?

The College Fix reported Thursday that Princeton has launched a “new ‘Drag University’ program” that purports to “train students in the ‘artform.’” Do parents send their children to Princeton for this? If there are any parents out there (and I’m sure there are, complete with peeling Bernie stickers on their Volvos) who would be pleased and proud, nay, thrilled, if their sons became drag queens), there are cheaper ways to accomplish this than plunking down $83,140 to get him or her or xer or whatever a degree from Princeton.

The Princeton drag queen training program is “open to all undergraduate and graduate students interested in the world of drag,” so students need not be concerned that they might be too young for it. And there are no prerequisites or preliminary courses that enrollees have to take; they can go from zero to drag queen with just one course. No wonder Princeton charges so much.

The course goes for the entire “academic” year and covers a sweeping array of pressing issues that every young man who will be graduating from college and facing the future in the next few years needs to know, and know thoroughly. These include “the history of drag, ‘Sewing 101,’ choreography, face painting, photoshoots, and other topics,” as if all that wasn’t quite enough, thank you very much.

On the cutting edge as always, Princeton was actually offering scholarships for this course. An Instagram post stated: “Drag University is a new program housed under the mentorship pillar of the Gender + Sexuality Resource Center,” as anyone would expect. The Gender + Sexuality Resource Center describes itself as fostering “a supportive and inclusive campus community for women, femme, trans and queer Princetonians.”

In line with that mission, Princeton’s Drag University is a full-year program that will “teach about the history of drag, as well as the art form of drag. Sessions will be taught by local drag performers, on-campus partners who know their way around machines, and other students. This program is open to undergraduate and graduate students. The first 8 applicants who commit to the entire curriculum and attend orientation will get a scholarship to cover costs of supplies.”

Generous. This course, however, is so very much in line with the spirit of the age that all the scholarships were snapped up in the twinkling of an eye. The College Fix noted that “the form was updated this week to note: ‘At this time we have reached our capacity for our scholarships, but you are more than welcome to attend our workshops.’” That kind invitation appears to be extended only to Princeton students, so you’re still in for the $83,140.

Considering that “pride” is the emblematic slogan and second-favorite deadly sin of the entire LGBTQETC movement, it would have been only natural for Princeton to be effusive and enthusiastic about its new Drag University and happy to respond to inquiries. However, when The College Fix reached out to university administrators, Princeton’s media affairs division, and the Gender + Sexuality Resource Center seeking information about “the number of students enrolled and what pool of money is being used to fund the scholarships,” all of them ignored the inquiries.

Surely they couldn’t have something to hide, could they? Surely they are just bursting with pride about their Drag University, and want all Princeton parents and alumni to know about it, don’t they? Don’t they? If not, why not? Could it be that somewhere underneath their dresses, exaggerated makeup, and wigs, Princeton administrators still have some understanding that this sort of “academic course” is deeply offensive on numerous levels and has no place in any decent university? Inconceivable!



Three-year-olds Encouraged to Join LGBT ‘Rainbow Clubs’

“Banned Books Week” ignores the REAL banned books.

WATCH: Shocking Videos Show Savage Violence, Trans-Male Violently Beats Female Student, Student Knocks Teacher Unconscious

The Result of Legalized Prostitution: Graphic Pro-Prostitution Book Given to German Children


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

Former State Judge And AG Splits From Industry-Sponsored Panelist, Rules Bud Light Violated Code By Marketing To Minors

One of the Beer Institute’s Code Compliance Review Board members (CCRB) said Bud Light violated code after the beer industry ad panel issued a ruling Tuesday over the brand’s ad campaign with a transgender influencer.

The majority of CCRB decided Bud Light did not violate the Beer Institute’s marketing code prohibiting marketing to minors. However, Paul Summers said Bud Light did violate the code in his dissenting opinion. Summers is a former state court appeals judge and Tennessee attorney general. He is also the only member of the CCRB who is a lawyer. This is the first time CCRB has issued dissent.

Bud Light has faced heavy criticism and lost its spot as America’s top-selling beer in early June after transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney showed off a personalized beer can featuring the influencer’s face. Bud Light’s sponsorship of Mulvaney violated the beer industry’s code prohibiting the marketing of alcohol to underage individuals, according to Summers’ dissent.

“Dylan Mulvaney has a persona wherein the actor looks and acts like a little girl. Mulvaney appeals to little children and often behaves like one,” Summers’ dissent and the CCRB’s decision reads.

Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, praised Summers’ opinion in a statement to the Daily Caller.

“This is the first time a review board member — and notably, the board’s only lawyer — has concluded that a brewer violated industry code prohibiting the marketing of alcoholic beverages to underage individuals. I applaud Judge Summers for having the courage to state what is self-evident: Mulvaney’s persona ‘looks and acts like a little girl’ and ‘appeals to little children and often behaves like one.’ It is clear Mulvaney was chosen because he produces content for a younger audience, and therefore, his selection would violate the industry’s self-regulatory code. Judge Summers also rightly noted that Anheuser-Busch failed to provide the ‘reasonable documentation’ I requested about the brewer’s decision to choose Mulvaney, effectively withholding from the board and Congress crucial information about the company’s actions,” Cruz said.

Cruz published a 13-page memo in June with various examples of how Anheuser-Busch’s sponsorship of Mulvaney was allegedly meant to appeal to minors. Anheuser-Busch CEO Brendan Whitworth, who serves as chairman of the Beer Institute, has continuously refused to comply with congressional requests for documents, according to Cruz’s memo.


(DAILY CALLER OBTAINED) — … by Henry Rodgers
“While I am disappointed but unsurprised with the ruling from the other two panelists on the board, I will continue efforts to shine a spotlight on how Anheuser-Busch chose a spokesperson meant to appeal to children. If marketing tobacco to minors is effectively illegal, perhaps Congress needs to take action to do the same with alcohol in light of Anheuser-Busch’s actions,” he added.

Bud Light also released a can featuring a rainbow design and the words “celebrate everyone’s identity,” with different pronouns printed on the bottle.

The Beer Institute’s Code Compliance Review Board was published on its website Tuesday afternoon.



Chief national correspondent. Follow Henry Rodgers On Twitter


EXCLUSIVE: Leaked Social Media Pics From Bud Light Ad Exec Who Slammed ‘Fratty’ Culture Seem Pretty Fratty

EXCLUSIVE: SOURCE: Top Anheuser-Busch Marketing Executives Responsible For Boycott Are No Longer Employed

REPORT: Bud Light Shoots Down From No. 1 To No. 4 For Most Popular Beers In Bars And Restaurants

REPORT: Dylan Mulvaney Publishes Job Ad On Instagram After Bud Light Disaster

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

New York City LGBT Activists Chant ‘We’re Coming For Your Kids’

Activists at a New York City drag march Friday can be heard chanting, “We’re coming for your children,” in videos of the event.

“We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children,” the activists shouted as they marched. The marchers convened at Tompkins Square Park and made their way through the East Village before stopping at Stonewall Inn. Stonewall Inn, a gay bar, was the site of a police raid which sparked violent protests known as the Stonewall Riots in 1969.

Other video taken of the event shows protestors with signs reading, “Groom Cissies” and “Drag isn’t for Cissies.”

As concerns rise over explicit drag events marketed to and performed for children, some states are taking action to prohibit underage kids from attending these shows. In May, Montana became the first state to ban drag shows from public spaces and being performing in front of children.

“Fortunately, here in Montana, we have a governor who recognizes that drag performers shouldn’t be reading books and grooming children at locations and facilities that receive public funding,” the bill’s Republican sponsor, state Rep. Mitchel Braxton, said.

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill in May which would punish businesses for hosting drag shows with children present. The “Protection Of Children” law authorized government to impose fines, suspensions or revoke the licenses of violating businesses.

The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) filed a complaint about reports that children were spotted at an explicit Orlando Christmas-themed drag show in December. The Florida governor’s administration is moving to revoke the venue’s liquor license over the alleged violation.



Social issues reporter.


‘Tons Of Children Present’: Transgender Person Chases Reporter At Pride Parade With Breasts ‘Completely Exposed’

BETSY MCCAUGHEY: America’s Silent Majority Is Turning Up The Heat On LGBTQ Activism — The Results Speak For Themselves

Bud Light Sponsors Raunchy Pride Show After Desperately Trying To Salvage Its Image


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

Religious Freedom for Christian Colleges: A Victory in Federal Court

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by the LGBTQ-sponsored “Religious Exemption Accountability Project” (REAP) asserting that “young and vulnerable” LGBTQ+ persons are “at the mercy of religiously affiliated, taxpayer-funded social service and educational institutions that often turn them away or force them into the closet.”

The students who litigated against the U.S. Department of Education and the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) wanted to overturn “a provision of Title IX that allows religious colleges to seek exemptions” from a law barring “sex-based discrimination.” Title IX is part of a 1972 measure and states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

However, there is a federal statute stating that Title IX “does not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization to the extent that application of Title IX would be inconsistent with the religious tenets of the organization.” In other words, if a school believes that sexual intimacy is reserved for one man and one woman in the covenantal bond of marriage, and thereby adhering to 3,500 years of Judeo-Christian teaching, it can receive federal resources without penalty.

So, in October 2021, “the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon allowed three Christian post-secondary schools represented by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys — Corban University, William Jessup University, and Phoenix Seminary — to intervene in the lawsuit and defend the relevant provisions of Title IX, the federal law under attack.”

The judge who issued the ruling, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken, was appointed to the federal court by Bill Clinton. “Exempting religiously controlled educational institutions from Title IX,” she wrote in her decision, “is substantially related to the government’s objective of accommodating religious exercise.”

The judge also “rejected (REAP’s) argument that the exemption ran afoul of the First Amendment’s prohibition against the establishment of religion by Congress, saying they failed to show how the federal government, in contrast to the schools, advanced religion.”

Throughout the country — in workplaces, businesses, and other venues — LGBTQ-identifying persons can be subject to verbal cruelty and personal harassment. These are affronts to the God-given dignity enjoyed by every image-bearer of our Creator. Followers of Jesus should not only oppose them but defend those attacked when able.

With that said, I cannot help but wonder why the students who filed the lawsuit attend Christian colleges and universities whose faith commitments state clearly what they believe about human sexuality. Did they apply to and enter these schools under false pretenses — affirming the institutions’ doctrinal standards while intending to fight them once enrolled? Or upon attending, did they decide they were LGBTQ and choose to remain in order to overturn the schools’ commitments to biblical teaching?

Perhaps they felt they have a strong precedent for such initiatives as the REAP lawsuit. This past fall, the Christian Reformed Church, even though affirming the Bible’s teaching about men, women, and sex, decided to let the faculty at its flagship college, Calvin University, “dissent from a clause in (the CRC) confession of faith that regards sex outside of heterosexual marriage as sinful, enabling them to continue to work at the Christian school while also respecting their convictions.”

In other words, a college founded to uphold scriptural standards allows professors who disdain some of those standards to teach and, thereby, influence the young people who attend the institution. This is like saying that although my car uses diesel fuel I’m going to fill it up with low-octane gas. Hey, I’m filling it up, right? Why judge me for my tolerance of and even compassionate sympathy for diverse fuel types?

Similarly, some churches have abandoned the Bible’s clear teaching about human sexuality after intense and unrelenting pressure from LGBT-identifying activists and their allies. Even though the worldwide Methodist communion uniformly opposes any sexual intimacy outside of traditional marriage, American Methodist advocates of complete sexual autonomy have insisted on violating their church’s stated beliefs and are now dividing the United Methodist Church.

With precedents like these, it is understandable that the insistent and relentless demands of LGBTQ activists and their supporters would try to erode those institutions retaining fidelity to “the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 1:2).

Anyone who agrees with a school’s doctrinal statement or at least agrees to abide by its standards is welcome at a Christian college or university, depending on the individual institution’s rules. Yet no one is compelled to remain at a school whose standards are repellent to him or her. To do so speaks of a lack of moral courage and personal dishonesty as well, perhaps, of a certain desperation for affirmation that the student himself or herself does not possess within.

My heart goes out to those wrestling with issues of sexual identity. But this court case hasn’t been about any student’s view of his or her sexuality. It’s about standing for the truth of the Word of God and allowing those who follow it to do so without penalty. Continuing to stand without compromise is one of the great and ongoing challenges for the believing church today. May we be found faithful.


Rob Schwarzwalder

Rob Schwarzwalder is Senior Lecturer in Regent University’s Honors College.

RELATED VIDEO: Frederik Jansen on the link between LGBTQ+ and the Frankfurt School – The Laughland Report

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Insidious’: Parents, Experts, and Lawmakers Speak Out on the Dangers of TikTok

EDITORS NOTE: This The Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. 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.

U.S. Air Force Academy holds seminar promoting ‘transgender visibility and awareness in our Air Force’

Every second spent on this kind of thing is a second taken away from training cadets to fight and win wars. But get with it, man! The idea that the military should be devoted to winning wars is so 1945! This is 2022! We have other priorities now, and the Chinese, Russians, jihadis, North Koreans et al are laughing uproariously.

Air Force Academy Holds ‘Transgender Visibility’ Seminar

by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, September 26, 2022:

The United States Air Force Academy on Thursday held a seminar promoting “transgender visibility and awareness in our Air Force.”

The “discussion” session focused “on awareness for transgender communities in the military,” according to a copy of an invitation for the event obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Events of this nature are part of a wholesale push by the U.S. military to foster a more culturally inclusive environment. Critics say this type of training is part of a woke cultural agenda that is being mainstreamed by the Democratic Party’s far-left flank. The Army, for instance, mandates gender identity training and instructs its officers on the best time to offer subordinates gender-transition surgery….

The first 40 cadets to attend the seminar received a free lunch….

Read more.

There ain’t no such thing, my friends.



CDC Allocated $85 Million For Grants Requiring Schools To Start Student-Led Clubs Supporting LGBT Youth

School ‘Gender And Sexuality Alliance’ Clubs Encourage Teen Girls To ‘Bind’ Their Breasts, Despite Health Risks

Meloni opposes UN’s Migration Compact, wants to preserve Italy’s national identity

Iran’s state-run Press TV tries to appeal to Leftists by denouncing freedom protests as ‘Islamophobic riots’

Iran: 12th night of protests, ex-president Rafsanjani’s daughter arrested

Australia: Islamic group demands Twitter institute procedure to remove ‘Islamophobic’ content automatically

France: Knife-wielding Muslim migrant screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ attacks man, threatens to kill him

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