All articles from August 1, 2019

Featured Image
Created Equal / YouTube
Created Equal

News , ,

Detroit police handcuff, push pro-life protesters to ‘nowhere land’ outside Dem debates

Created Equal
By Created Equal

August 1, 2019 (Created Equal) — This week, on Tuesday and Wednesday, Created Equal protested at the Presidential Debate in Detroit, MI. What we encountered from Detroit police was nothing short of police state tactics used to censor our pro-life views. In the name of "safety," our rights were routinely violated several times by law enforcement eventually culminating in the handcuffing of Created Equal President Mark Harrington.

On at least four different occasions in the span of a few hours, our pro-life views were forcefully suppressed by Detroit police while other more politically correct speech was protected.

Detroit police are caught on film saying:

  • "Let it be unconstitutional, then."
  • "I can't have a Boston bomber!"
  •  "You're going to jail!"
  •  "This is not Burger King." Apparently, a reference to not getting to "have it our way."

Police forced us to conduct our outreach several blocks away from the Fox Theatre and nowhere near persons who came to attend the debate.

Mark Harrington said, "By threat of arrest police compelled us to be penned up in nowhere land while more liberal protesters were permitted to express themselves undeterred. False accusations of trespass, disorderly conduct, and violating a legal order, among other equally spurious allegations, were used to bully us into submission. We are now evaluating our legal options in response to this blatant infringement of our First Amendment rights."

Detroit is a liberal, pro-abortion bastion. At one point an officer said his orders to restrict us "came from on high." In other words, the city of Detroit was out to protect pro-abortion presidential candidates from protesters. 

Created Equal supports law enforcement. We also understand that the government can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. However, those restrictions must be tailored in a way to be minimally restrictive to free expression. Resigning pro-life activists to an obscure and non-visible location is not reasonable or minimally restrictive.

Created Equal is a national anti-abortion organization that focuses on training students to be pre-born defenders by using a traveling photo exhibit to show as many students as possible what abortion does to preborn children.  Placing abortion in the broader context of human equality, the project attempts to create debate on campus to influence America's future decision-makers and leaders.

Published with permission from Created Equal.

Featured Image
Tory M.P. Andrew Scheer.
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne

News , , ,

Multiple pro-family Canadians accuse Conservative Party of blackballing their candidacies

Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

August 1, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Christian psychotherapist Dr. Ann Gillies was six weeks into campaigning for the Conservative Party of Canada nomination in her Ontario riding when she received a curt email from party executive director Dustin Van Vugt telling her she’d been disallowed.

A longstanding party member whose campaign in Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound had been building “really, really good momentum,” Gillies was “shocked” — not just that she’d been disqualified, but that the party gave no reason for its decision.

But she has a good idea what was behind it, Gillies told LifeSiteNews.

A source close to the party, whose identity she won’t reveal, told Gillies her public criticism of the LGBTQ agenda and transgender ideology was her undoing.

“Well, that would be the only reason that they would disallow me. There would be no other reason,” Gillies told LifeSiteNews. “I can’t prove any of this.”

Although Gillies was reinstated on appeal, the national council rejected her again eight days later. Her source told her then that “someone who was very high up in the party, who really did not want me in the party,” had relayed quotes to the council from Gillies’s 2017 book, Closing the Floodgates.

The book is described on its back jacket as an exposé of “how a determined minority is using social engineering to reconstruct our social and moral worlds by redefining gender, sexuality and the family.”

“I maybe am a bit of a media storm in the sense of what I speak about, and what I write about, but it is all fact-based,” Gillies told LifeSiteNews.

Jack Fonseca, director of political operations for Campaign Life Coalition, says he heard the same from his sources within the Conservative Party.

Fonseca broke the Gillies story in June as Exhibit A of a growing body of evidence he says makes it clear the Conservative Party of Canada is icing out pro-family candidates with leader Andrew Scheer’s blessing.

Indeed, so marked is this trend that a socially conservative Tory M.P. told Fonseca: “If I were running for nomination for the first time today, I honestly don’t know if the party would accept me.”

Gillies was disqualified the first time based on “a YouTube video of a lecture she gave to a church group in which she discussed the phenomenon of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, and criticized school curriculum for pushing gender identity theory and the LGBT agenda on children,” Fonseca told LifeSiteNews.

According to his sources, after Gillies appealed the decision and won, Scheer’s office was not pleased and insisted that the National Council disqualify her again, Fonseca said.

“Scheer’s office presented numerous pages from Dr. Gillies’ book as evidence she must be banned as a candidate. What was in the book that was so bad? Nothing, if you happen to be a biblical Christian, Jew, Muslim or another tradition who believes in natural marriage,” Fonseca said.

“Of course, the unpardonable ‘crime’ committed here by Gillies, according to Scheer’s advisors, was that LGBT ideology was a significant theme explored in the book, and that would supposedly cause the party to lose the election when the liberal media found out.”

But Gillies’s beliefs are “mainstream in her rural riding and in many parts of Canada,” Fonseca pointed out.

That includes “with important swing voter blocs in some urban areas where, if anything, her beliefs would increase the CPC’s chances of defeating the Liberals.”

Conservative Party blocking pro-family candidates?

Cory Hann, communications director for the Conservative Party of Canada, denied that the party discriminates against pro-family members.

“Unlike the Liberals, we’re a grassroots supported party where members ultimately decide their candidate. All of our nominations are completely fair and open, and our rules and procedures are clear — we apply these equally to all candidates in all ridings,” he told LifeSiteNews in an email.

“The Conservative Party is a big tent party where a variety of views are welcomed and allowed, and where we’re joined together by the common goal of uniting Canadians, not dividing them.”

But Hann conceded that disallowances are part of the process.

“In the rare case a nominee may be disallowed, it is never a decision the party takes lightly,” he said.

Fonseca says Hann’s “bafflegab” response implicitly confirms his contention that Scheer and top party brass, notably campaign manager Hamish Marshall, have intervened in the nomination process to block individuals who publicly express belief in the traditional definition of marriage or that there are two sexes as opposed to multiple genders.

The Conservatives also disallowed Salim Mansur in June as the candidate in London North Centre. The decision was widely criticized by conservative pundits, including Andrew Lawton, who reported that Marshall told Mansur the party was concerned his writings could be construed as Islamophobic.

It’s worth noting Mansur’s disqualification came not long after he tweeted photos of himself taking part in the National March for Life in Ottawa, an event organized by Campaign Life Coalition, Fonseca said.

Christian TV broadcaster rejected twice

Fonseca says he know knows of several other outspoken pro-life and pro-family nomination candidates who’ve been disqualified or otherwise blocked from running.

That includes Christian television broadcaster Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, whom Fonseca also reported on in June.

After she lost her job with the 700 Club in April 2018 because of her lobbying against British Columbia’s infamous Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) 123 curriculum, she decided to run for the Conservative nomination in New Westminster, Tyler Thompson told LifeSiteNews.

She had asked the party to waive its rule that a candidate must be a party member for six months, a request she says it grants “liberally” to those who ask, when she heard that the party was acclaiming 24-year-old Megan Veck, who at the time was living in Ottawa.

“I got a letter of rejection ultimately from Dustin Van Vugt and [national party president] Scott Lamb. I then wrote a very impassioned letter why, and I never received a response,” Tyler Thompson said.

She applied next to run for the Conservative nomination in South Burnaby, B.C., but the party acclaimed Jason Shin.

“I heard via the grapevine … the higher-ups had had concerns because my posts on my Facebook, which I had refused to remove,” she told LifeSiteNews.

The posts “state facts about gender fluid ideology … I thought, no, I abide by these and the Conservative Party agrees with me, do they not? We shouldn’t be teaching little boys they can be a little girl,” Tyler Thompson said.

“Is this not the party that would stand with me as I now stand for my country? And apparently they are not.”

Fonseca concurs with Tyler Thompson’s assessment of why the party didn’t want to let her run.

“Her TV show devoted episodes to criticizing the teaching of gender identity theory to children and urged viewers to push back against classroom indoctrination,” he told LifeSiteNews.

“Does the party expect us to believe that’s not the real reason why it banned her from seeking the Conservative nomination? Give me a break.”

Party faithful become “angry opponents”

In her first appeal letter to the Conservative national council, Gillies argued that her disallowance directly contradicted Scheer’s message to a town hall on March 7, 2019.

“You won’t get kicked out of the Conservative Party of Canada because you come from a different perspective or have a different view on issues that are important to you, whether it’s based on faith or your own personal option,” Scheer said then.

Moreover, disallowing her candidacy “may be viewed as expressing intolerance within the party,” Gillies wrote.

“To interfere without justification in the grassroots nomination process strikes at the heart of the democratic process,” she noted. It also “has the undesirable effect of turning otherwise faithful party members into angry opponents.”

Indeed, Tyler Thompson; Mansur; and Angelina Ireland, another outspokenly pro-life nomination candidate who alleges that the party “froze me out” to the point where she felt compelled to withdraw her nomination application in Delta, B.C., have all become candidates in Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party.

Tyler Thompson ran against Shin in the Burnaby South by-election and won 11 percent of the vote. She has now moved to Alberta to run for the People’s Party in Red Deer-Lacombe.

Bernier “has people in his party who are atheists, he has gay people, he has people who don’t agree, but the point is we are Canadian and we have our rights,” she explained.

“And that is where the Conservative Party of Canada has lost the game, they have lost the narrative,” she said.

“We have the most important election of all of history, because this is a big deal. These issues, especially transgenderism, are taking over the nation and so if we do not fight this, we will not recognize our nation in 10 years,” Tyler Thompson told LifeSiteNews.

“We don’t have time for four years of a Conservative Party of Canada government who will bow to the ideology and refuse to allow us to stand.”

Scheer takes page from Trudeau playbook

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was roundly criticized, even by the media, when he decreed in 2014 as Liberal leader that pro-life Canadians would not be permitted to run as Liberal candidates.

Now Scheer’s Conservative Party is “deploying the exact same policy” to “deprive Canadians who are religious believers from being able to participate in party democracy,” alleged Fonseca.

The party’s top brass blocked Gillies “not for her strong pro-life beliefs, but for her pro-traditional marriage and pro-biblical sexuality beliefs. This is just as discriminatory as  Trudeau’s ban on pro-life candidates” and makes Scheer’s criticism of Trudeau on this score “stunningly hypocritical,” he said.

Moreover, “Scheer’s continual efforts to appease the left by adopting Liberal-lite positions, his embrace of LGBT ideology which appears to be growing daily, and his discrimination against socially-conservative nomination candidates has caused the party to lose a significant portion of its base,” Fonseca asserted.

That’s reflected in the most recent polls, which suggest the Conservatives have lost their lead over the Liberals, he said.

“The SNC Lavalin scandal fell into the their laps quite by accident and gave the party a temporary lead they could have kept by continuing to energize their small-c conservative base with truly conservative policies, like those which respect the family, free speech, parental rights and at least some nod to the sanctity of life. They’ve done the opposite,”observed Fonseca.

“I’m saddened to say that Scheer and his right hand man, Hamish Marshall, are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by bumbling their way through this campaign in such an unprincipled manner,” he added.

“Everybody knows you can’t win an election without your base.”

To order Dr. Ann Gillies’s book Closing the Floodgates, go here.

Featured Image
Martin M. Barillas / LifeSiteNews
Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin

News ,

WATCH: Pro-lifers protest ‘extremist pro-abortion platform’ outside Democratic debates

Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin
By Martin Barillas

August 15, 2019, 12:30 EST update: A video of the protest has now been added to this report. 

DETROIT, Michigan, August 1, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – As Democratic presidential contenders sparred over a slew of progressive issues, pro-life “abolitionists” were on the street calling on them to show mercy for the unborn and confronting passersby with images of abortion victims.

Dr. Monico Migliorino Miller of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society and a group of her supporters protested outside of Detroit’s famed Fox Theater. In an interview on the scene with LifeSiteNews, Miller, who is also a Red Rose Rescue movement leader, said that she wants to see the abolition of abortion.

Abortion is “cruel and heartless,” she said. “You wouldn’t do it to a dog.” Standing near the steps of St. John’s Episcopal church on Woodward Avenue and what was once known as Piety Hill, Miller told LifeSiteNews: “Women don’t regret having babies; they regret having abortions.” 

One of the female pro-life advocates wore a t-shirt that declared: “I regret my two abortions.”

Pro-life leader handcuffed by police: ‘We are now evaluating our legal options’

According to a press release from the pro-life group Created Equal, which also protested outside both the Tuesday and Wednesday night debates, “In the name of ‘safety,’ our rights were routinely violated several times by law enforcement eventually culminating in the handcuffing of Created Equal President Mark Harrington.”

“By threat of arrest police compelled us to be penned up in nowhere land while more liberal protesters were permitted to express themselves undeterred. False accusations of trespass, disorderly conduct, and violating a legal order, among other equally spurious allegations, were used to bully us into submission,” said Harrington. “We are now evaluating our legal options in response to this blatant infringement of our First Amendment rights.”

Abortion supporters block pro-life signs

Hundreds of left-wing protesters marched on Woodward Avenue, passing Fox Theater while carrying placards in support of abortion, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s so-called Green New Deal, labor unions, and various environmental causes. Some wore black t-shirts bearing the logo of the Democratic Socialist Party of the United States. Others covered their faces with scarves or bandanas. 

Woodward Avenue, which had been cordoned off on one end at Fisher Service Drive and at another nearby intersection, was closed to media and pro-life advocates. However, police opened it for the leftist marchers. Beating drums and shouting slogans, some of the protesters chanted, “Their bodies, their choice!” as they marched past the pro-life advocates.

A young male protester held up a placard immediately in front of a pro-life advocate in an apparent attempt to conceal her pro-life poster and message. A young female protester joined in, shouting pro-abortion slogans and also trying to cover up the pro-life messages.

A female marcher approached one of the pro-life advocates on the sidewalk of the Woodward Avenue bridge that crosses the I-75 freeway. LifeSiteNews witnessed her holding up her placard and attempting to cover a pro-life sign. Police later approached the pro-life advocates, telling them that the woman had complained that she had been assaulted. Other witnesses on hand told LifeSiteNews that there was no assault. 

Showing pictures of aborted babies ‘is the only way for them to speak’ 

Miller told LifeSiteNews that pro-lifers were present outside the debate venue to show that the unborn are “human beings, members of the human family.” She said she was saddened that all of the Democratic presidential candidates at the debate adhere to a “completely radical, extremist pro-abortion platform.” Miller said that her group wants to expose the truth about the Democratic party. Pointing to the large posters bearing photographs of dismembered, aborted babies, Miller said that the images allow them to “speak the truth about what happened to them.” She added: “This is the only way for them to speak.” 

Miller accepted being labeled an “abolitionist,” saying that she wants to “abolish legalized abortion, and do all we can to help mothers who are in need.” She added that her group provides an array of aid to pregnant women – food, baby items, automobiles, and even homes. 

During the Wednesday evening debate with fellow Democrats, Biden defended himself from Sen. Kamala Harris, who asked: “Why did it take so long, when you were running for president, to change your position on the Hyde Amendment?” 

Biden reversed his previous support for the Hyde Amendment, which is a measure that bars the use of federal funds for most abortions. In early June, less than 48 hours after his staff confirmed that the former vice-president indeed still supported the Hyde Amendment, Biden told a gala in Georgia: “If I believe healthcare is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone's zip code.” 

Addressing the fact that Biden is a fellow Catholic, Miller, a theology professor, said in response: “There is absolutely no way that he can be genuinely Catholic or truly believing in what the Church teaches on the sanctity of life, and hold the position that he holds. It’s impossible. He is morally incoherent.”

Biden, in addition to serving in arguably the most pro-abortion administration in American history, has also officiated same-sex “weddings.”

Featured Image
Orthodox Jews lead a protest against an LGBT sporting event in Lakewood, N.J. MassResistance
Mass Resistance

News ,

Orthodox Jews lead the way in opposing New Jersey ‘Pride’ propaganda

Mass Resistance
Rabbi Yehuda Levin getting things rolling!
BlueClaws Pride Night logo
The pro-family protesters lined the street across from the stadium.
Jews and Christians joined together!
A Catholic activist with shirt that says "Unborn Lives Matter" rebukes an LGBT counter-protester saying: "When I choose to go to a watch the baseball game I shouldn't have to celebrate your deviant sexual behavior."
Neighbors supporting each other in protest.
The answer to "gay pride."
Sometimes a very direct message is needed!
"These politicians are not representing us or our values. They're only representing the donations they can get."
Yes, this is basically what's happening there!

August 1, 2019 (MassResistance) — Our latest MassResistance chapter — based in Lakewood, New Jersey — has hit the ground running! Led by local Orthodox Jews and working with area Christians, they are taking on the LGBT agenda publicly and without fear. They've recently held three public protests, and they're just getting started!

New Jersey MassResistance was started by a group of Orthodox Jews in Lakewood, NJ who have been horrified by the LGBT movement targeting their community. MassResistance has worked with their local leader since 2015.

Their community decided it was time to organize the resistance! It didn't take long for local Catholic and Protestant religious leaders and their congregations to join them.

The force behind it: Rabbi Yehuda Levin

Rabbi Yehuda Levin of Brooklyn, NY, has been a strong figure in the pro-family movement for decades. MassResistance began working with him in 2004 when he came to Boston to oppose the imposition of "gay marriage" on the state, and we have helped each other on several projects since then.

Rabbi Levin is closely aligned with the Orthodox rabbis in Lakewood, NJ. Seeing what was going on, he made a series of videos to rally the Orthodox community and also to get the local Christian community involved. This got things rolling. Then he traveled to Lakewood to join the protests personally.

Rabbi Levin video to Lakewood Orthodox rabbis

Rabbi Levin video to Lakewood Christian community

1. Protesting "Pride Night" at local minor league baseball stadium

The Lakewood BlueClaws are a Class A Minor League baseball team affiliated with the Philadelphia Phillies. Their stadium is located just blocks away from an all-boys Orthodox Jewish school and several Orthodox synagogues. It's widely considered to be a "religious yeshiva" part of town. There are also many Christian churches in that general area.

When the BlueClaws management made a big announcement that their June 8 game (on the Jewish Sabbath) would be a "Pride Night" and they would be giving out free rainbow caps, local residents were shocked. It was seen as a direct affront to the surrounding community of religious Jews and Christians.

So Rabbi Levin announced a protest would take place outside the stadium a few days before, on June 6. The MassResistance group of Orthodox Jews leafleted the entire area, encouraging all religious people to join them.

The rabbis also noted that the town politicians had given the BlueClaws a favorable leasing deal, and now they are "turning a blind eye as they flaunt their politically correct anti-Judeo-Christian" message and push "anti-family values down our throat." They said they are part of "the homosexualization of our community."

It quickly got the attention of the local liberal media:

The BlueClaws management reacted by insulting the local people even further. The team released an absurd explanation saying that "baseball is for everyone" — a statement that no one disagrees with. People disagree with promoting sexual perversion. It's not for everyone!

Here's the BlueClaws statement to the press a few days before their Pride Night:

We are committed to the idea that baseball is for everyone and all people are welcome at a BlueClaws game. It is unfortunate that some individuals are choosing to display intolerance rather than embrace the true spirit of the night. We look forward to BlueClaws Pride Night on Saturday.

A group of local Catholics and also some Protestants joined the protest. On June 6 outside the stadium, over 70 pro-family protesters showed up (about half Christians and half Jews). It was a great success! (About 15 LGBT counter-protesters came to try and intimidate them, but that was a flop.)


2. Protesting "Pride month celebrations" at local public library

Unfortunately, there was more to come at the local Ocean Park Public Library, which is also just blocks from Orthodox synagogues as well as Christian churches. The library draws many Orthodox Jewish children from the area.

During the month of June, the library aggressively celebrated "Gay Pride Month." According to local reports, this included "displays of LGBT themes, books with LGBT characters, LGBT speakers and presentations, movie screenings and other events that are geared toward varying ages." In other words, it was purposefully pushing a perverse anti-family agenda on the local religious community.

As a result, a nearby Jewish school, Yeshiva Orchos Chaim, told parents it was their official policy was that no child should go to the public library during the month of June.

Furthermore, as the Lakewood MassResistance leaders noted, the library's offensive activity contradicts its own policy, which states that:

The Library strives to create a warm, welcoming environment for our customers of all ages … The library is a public place and the safety of children is therefore a serious concern … Young children need to feel safe and secure.

But the library officials ignored the complaints from the parents.

So Rabbi Levin called for a protest outside the library on the evening of June 27. Again, the Orthodox activists leafleted the neighborhoods.

And again, the local liberal media reacted angrily to the upcoming protest:

But the protest was another big success! This time over 110 people came to protest. Nearly a quarter of them were Christians, the rest Orthodox Jews. The local Bible Baptist Church sent its pastor and many others to take part. A lot of people — including public officials — got the message! (Again, about 15 LGBT counter-protesters tried to intimidate them, but weren't effective at all.)


3. Protesting outside a fundraiser for pro-LGBT "Orthodox" Jewish politicians

This was a much smaller protest with only one person physically participating. But many others in the Orthodox community were extremely outraged and worked in the background.

On July 24, a local Jewish businessman in Lakewood put on a political fundraiser at a private home there. The event was to raise money for Illinois State Representative Yehiel Mark Kalish. The special guest was New Jersey Assemblyman Schaer, who represents an area north of Lakewood.

Both politicians are Democrats. But it's far worse than that.

Illinois Rep. Kalish is an ordained Orthodox rabbi who strongly supports legalized abortion and "the rights of the LGBT community" including "marriage equality." 

New Jersey Assemblyman Schaer is the first Orthodox Jew elected to the New Jersey Legislature. In 2017 he was endorsed by the statewide LGBT group Garden State Equality as an "LGBT-friendly candidate." 

Here's the poster that was circulated around Lakewood advertising the fundraiser:

The flyer advertising the "orthodox" fundraiser.

How does this happen? Even among Orthodox Jews there are those who will sell out their faith for a little power. It's particularly infuriating because it puts dishonor on everyone else.

To hold such an offensive fundraising event in a serious Orthodox Jewish community seemed more than a coincidence. It almost seemed purposeful. A statement had to be made. So with the blessing of Rabbi Levin, one of the group went and held a sign in front of the house during the event.

People got the message!

Final thoughts

Orthodox Jews believe that it's important to fight back against immoral attacks on one's community, even if the odds are stacked against you. They also believe that one must not shy away from telling the truth. We absolutely agree. And from what we've seen, that attitude and approach always brings positive results in some way, despite what you are up against.

You'll be seeing more from New Jersey MassResistance!

Published with permission from MassResistance.

Featured Image
Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin


Disney Channel ramps up its LGBTQ agenda in ‘Andi Mack’ show for kids

Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin
By Martin Barillas

LOS ANGELES, August 1, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) -- The season finale of a Disney Channel teen show made history by featuring the network’s first teenage homosexual couple.

On the Andi Mack show, Cyrus Goodman -- a 13-year-old male gay character -- confesses on the last episode his feelings for a male classmate, TJ Kippen. As romantic music plays on the soundtrack, Cyrus asks TJ, “Is there anything else you want to tell me?” TJ responds, “Yeah,” and then asks the same question. Cyrus says “Yes” while TJ takes his hand. The camera pans away while the music swells as a fire illuminates the emotionally-charged scene. 

Andi Mack has thus joined a number of other television shows aimed at children that feature transgender and/or homosexual characters. These include Chilling Adventures of Sabrina on Netflix, Euphoria on HBO, and Batwoman and Charmed on CW. 

In February, the sexual orientation of the Cyrus character on Andi Mack was confirmed. At that time, he was the first to say “I’m gay” on a Disney Channel children’s television series. On Twitter, Luke Mullen, the actor who played the TJ character, wrote that he hoped young viewers would be proud of their sexuality as a result of watching the series.

“Honored to be apart of such a groundbreaking show,” Mullen wrote. “I hope my character can inspire people to proud (sic) of who they are and love who they love.”

The Andi Mack show has aired for three seasons and followed a coming-of-age theme, receiving gushing reviews from critics and LGBTQ advocates. The series delved into the life of the 13-year-old eponymous female character and has received the highest ratings on U.S. television in its time slot among kids ages 6 to 14. The series was directed by Terri Minsky and followed the life of Andi (portrayed by Peyton Elizabeth Lee), her family and close friends, Cyrus (Joshua Rush) and Buffy (Sofia Wylie).

However, despite some of the actors’ affirmation of homosexual activity, one of the actors in the series was fired for trying to confirm a sexual hookup with a minor in Utah. Stoney Westmoreland, who played Andi’s grandfather, was arrested and then charged in the case. He was fired from Andi Mack, as well as other acting gigs.

Westmoreland, who was 48 at the time, was subsequently charged with six felony counts in 2018 after law enforcement alleged that he used the Grindr dating app to seek a sexual encounter with someone he thought was a 13-year-old boy. Westmoreland had played roles in the television series Breaking Bad and Scandal. 

“We had the honor of breaking a lot of new ground for Disney Channel. We were its first serialized show, its first series centered around an Asian-American family and its first to feature an LGBTQ character who spoke the words, 'I'm gay,'" Minsky said in a statement in April. "But the best part of making Andi Mack was our audience, who let us know we mattered to them. The series finale is for them."

The leader of GLAAD, one of the most powerful LGBTQ advocacy groups in the United States, hailed the series as reflecting the lives of homosexual young people. 

Rush, who played Cyrus, visited Capitol Hill in July. On his Twitter account, he stated that he saw Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speak and he visited Congressional offices.

Featured Image
Paige A. Thompson Twitter
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy


Capital One thief is a biological male, not a woman – a ‘trans’

Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

August 5, 2019, 11:15 AM update: This report has now been updated with comments from GitHub.

SEATTLE, Washington, August 1, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) ― If you believe that the computer engineer arrested on Monday for stealing the data of 106 million Capital One bank customers is female, it's likely because mainstream media is using his preferred pronoun "she."

As a matter of biological fact, Paige A. Thompson is a 33-year-old man from Seattle who posted on Twitter a selfie of himself wearing false eyelashes before gun-toting FBI agents raided his home. 

Despite this, Thompson has been referred to as a "woman" and as "she" by numerous mainstream news sources, including The New York Times, CNN, CBS News, and Bloomberg

Thompson, who is a former employee of Amazon, is a software developer with a penchant for living online. According to the legal complaint, Thompson, who sometimes used the online alias “erratic,” hacked into a computer owned by Capital One Financial Corporation, obtained the data of about 106 million customers or would-be customers, allegedly posted it on “GitHub”, a sharing service used by computer programmers, and later bragged about it on “Slack”, another sharing service. 

“... Paige A. Thompson … has made statements on social media evidencing the fact that she [sic] has information of Capital One, and that she recognizes that she has acted illegally,” stated Special Agent Joel Martini of the FBI’s Cyber Squad.

On July 17, someone contacted Capital One to inform the company that their data was on GitHub and provided a computer address which contained Thompson’s name.  Martini’s investigation led him to connect Thompson’s online aliases with Thompson, who discussed his theft on various social media, including Twitter. 

“I’ve basically strapped myself with a bomb vest …. Dropping Capitol [sic] One’s dox and admitting it,” Thompson wrote to the “reporting source”. 

GitHub reached out to LifeSiteNews after this report was published, stating that the "file posted on GitHub in this incident did not contain any Social Security numbers, bank account information, or any other reportedly stolen personal information."

"We received a request from Capital One to remove content containing information about the methods used to steal the data, which we took down promptly after receiving their request,” a spokesperson stated. 

The New York Times reported earlier this week that Thompson discussed his “personal challenges” in online forums for months this year: “suicidal thoughts, struggles to find employment, and difficulties she [sic] had faced since transitioning to a woman years before.”

According to Thompson’s former friend Sarah Stensberg, Thompson’s life was indeed erratic, sometimes following a “promising career” as a software developer, and sometimes overturning his life, sometimes finding community online with other computer scientists, and sometimes alienating all his friends.  

“It was just a lifelong thing for her [sic],” Stensberg said. 

“When she gets in these phases of intensity, she does really stupid things. She’ll push everyone away. She’ll write threatening emails. She’ll post things online about the things she’s doing.”

Stensberg’s husband has known Thompson since he was a teenager; they both belonged to a computer programmers’ club. Thompson grew up in a broken home, and at one point moved out to live with another software developer, Stensberg reported. 

Thompson dropped out of Bellevue Community College to do computer-related jobs, and when Stensberg met him in 2010, his disruptive behavior was quite obvious. She and her husband once took their friend to the hospital to get him into an “inpatient treatment center,” but later conflicts led them to file a protective order against him. 

Another friend, Aeif Dunn, reported that Thompson talked about the difficulties of transitioning into a woman and how he thought the change had “made it difficult for [him] to associate with people professionally.”

Sadly, when Thompson blogged some years earlier about problems in exploring “reassignment surgery,” he said what he really wanted and needed was friends.

“I think really what I want and need is friends,” he wrote. 

“I think my problems with acceptance come from the fact that I have so few friends to accept me when I could.”

Thompson seems to have depended on online communities for any semblance of companionship and recently informed his Twitter followers that he wanted to check into a mental hospital.

“After this is over I’m going to go check into the mental hospital for an indefinite amount of time,” he tweeted. 

“I have a whole list of things that will ensure my involuntary confinement from the world. The kind that they can’t ignore or brush off onto the crisis clinic. I’m never coming back.”

In May, a former “transman” gave a lecture in Vancouver in which she blamed the internet, particularly social media, for encouraging vulnerable, unhappy children to undergo “transitioning” into the opposite sex.

Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News ,

Ex Google insider confirms YouTube skews search results in response to left-wing pressure

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

August 1, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – A former Google employee who shed light on multiple aspects of the internet giant’s liberal leanings is speaking out again, this time confirming a recent report about manually suppressing search topics at the apparent behest of left-wing media personalities.

This week, Breitbart reported that an anonymous whistleblower within Google alleged that the company added “Federal Reserve” to its YouTube blacklist file, ensuring that searches for the topic return videos from mainstream media sources rather than videos with a more critical perspective. The alleged addition apparently came soon after MSNBC host Chris Hayes complained that he found YouTube searches on the topic to be “informationally toxic.”

Originally leaked in January, the blacklist file also included the term “abortion,” apparently in response to complaints by another left-wing media figure, Slate’s April Glaser, complaining that YouTube searches on the procedure returned commentary from conservative pundit Ben Shapiro and informational videos by former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino.

On Wednesday, former Google software engineer Mike Wacker tweeted that “Federal Reserve” had indeed been added to the blacklist file, one day after Hayes’ complaint:

LifeSiteNews has previously covered Wacker for sharing various alarming details about Google’s internal biases, such as communications in which a manager is quoted as justifying Google’s crackdown on so-called “hate” specifically “because that’s how Trump won the election,” the company’s labeling of YouTube videos espousing a Christian view of sin and homosexuality as “homophobic,” and “diversity training” materials that declare gender a social construct. Google eventually fired him for speaking out.

Google responded to Breitbart by acknowledging that its algorithms are “designed to surface authoritative content,” but claiming that this content covers “all political viewpoints” and that it seeks only to weed out “spam and conspiracy theories” from top results. But the statement did not address the apparent timing of changes to satisfy complaints by liberal media figures.

Further, the revelations further contradict Google vice president for government affairs and public policy Karan Bhatia’s insistence before Congress last month that “we don’t use blacklists, whitelists to influence our search results.”

The YouTube blacklist file is just one aspect of the ongoing controversy over political bias and censorship across the internet giant’s platforms and services. 

Conservative pundit Dennis Prager recently testified before Congress about Google placing dozens of his PragerU educational videos on YouTube under age restrictions meant to filter out violence and porn. The veterans charity Mighty Oaks Foundation recently saw YouTube reject one of their ads on the grounds that “Christian” was an “unacceptable” keyword.

Featured Image
Pope John Paul II during a visit to England, in Coventry, Warwickshire, May 1982. Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy


John Paul II Institute’s identity ‘seriously threatened’: Vice-president

Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

ROME, Italy, August 1, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – The vice-president of the beleaguered John Paul II Pontifical Institute has spoken candidly to media about the threat posed by new changes to the college which was re-purposed by Pope Francis in 2017. 

Fr. José Granados, DCJM (Disciples of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary) spoke to Catholic News Agency (CNA) yesterday about what critics are calling the “destruction” of the institute. 

“It seems to me that the identity of the Institute is seriously threatened, so it is necessary to present, with respect but clearly, the objective problems within the recent changes, and warn of the danger to the original mission of the Institute, which Pope Francis has clearly said he wants to preserve, not just as a piece of the past, but precisely because it is a source of renewal and a pathway for the Church’s accompaniment to families,” Granados told CNA.

The most recent changes include the temporary suspension of the entire faculty and staff, the dismissal of key faculty members, and the abolition of its chair of fundamental moral theology. 

Uncertain of the future of the academic year they have already signed up for, students collaborated on a letter of protest they sent to the Institute’s president, Pierangelo Sequeri, and its Grand Chancellor, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia. 

The original Institute was the brainchild of St. John Paul II, who founded the school in 1981 as the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family. The Institute was mandated by the Polish pontiff’s Familiaris Consortio, and an interdisciplinary cohort of Catholic professors and students collaborated on effectively presenting John Paul II’s extensive theology of sexuality, marriage, and the family to a jaded world. 

In 2016, Pope Francis replaced the Pontifical Institute’s president, Monsignor Livio Melina, with Sequeri, who―despite a career in academic theology―is best known in Italy as a composer of liturgical hymns.  

Then, in 2017, Pope Francis ordered radical changes to the Institute with his motu proprio Summa familiae cura,” effectively abolishing it and establishing the “John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences” in its place. The short apostolic letter contained two references to Amoris laetitia, but also the current pontiff’s assurances that he wished “the farsighted intuition of Saint John Paul II ... [to]  be better recognised and appreciated it its fruitfulness and timeliness.” 

Granados told CNA that since this mandate, the Institute has been trying to implement changes while still being faithful to John Paul II’s vision:

“...We have been working for a renewal in continuity, as indicated by our Holy Father Francis. The desire of the pope has been to support the Institute, expand it, promote it, as Monsignor Sequeri told us at the beginning,” he said. 

However, the new statutes ordered for the Institute, which many faculty members did not see until they were approved by the Congregation for Catholic Education, came as a surprise to the Vice-President.  

These new rules “decrease the presence of professors in the Institute’s leadership council: stable teachers now have only two representatives, while before all participated, from their different chairs,” Granados told CNA. 

“This applies to the entire academic life of the Institute: it decreases the collegial contribution of the stable professors to pass doctoral theses or [assist in developing] the curriculum.”

In addition, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the non-academic who is now the Grand Chancellor, has the ultimate authority over which new professors are hired; this is no longer the purview of the faculty itself.   

“The loss of collegiality is astonishing, because in an interdisciplinary institute, which is characterized by studying the same object - marriage and family - from the points of view of each discipline, the contribution of all teachers in their different chairs is needed, be it to examine the curriculum, be it to approve doctoral theses, be it for the election of the new members of the faculty,” Granados said. 

“And this should be recognized as a right in the statutes, because it is a vital point of the institution.”

Meanwhile, the first new faculty member to join the Institute will be the Humanae vitae dissenter Maurizio Chiodi, sources told LifeSiteNews.

“Rumors now circulate that Professor Maurizio Chiodi will come to teach, who opens himself up to the lawfulness of contraception and accepts homosexual acts as ‘possible’ in some situations,” Granados told CNA.

“If new stable professors are promoted along the same lines, without following normal procedures, claiming an ‘urgency’ for which no reason is given, a great tension would be created within the Institute.”  

Granados also voiced his dismay that courses in moral theology have been halved, and that three professors of moral theology have been dismissed. He said that the loss of faculty members of great importance to the history of the Institute has left him and his colleagues “dumbfounded.”  

“... Especially worrisome is the suppression of the chair of fundamental moral theology, which was held by Msgr. Melina,” he told CNA.  

“It has been an active chair for 38 years, from which taught Cardinal Caffarra. We could say that it is essential for the work of the Institute, if we consider that Wojtyla was a moral theologian and entrusted the chair to the first president of the Institute,” he continued.

“It is a decisive chair. If the fundamentals of morality are unknown, if these are not well placed, marriage morality remains in the air.”

Granados took issue with a press release from the Institute, which explained that the chair was being done away with because fundamental moral theology is studied as part of the program preliminary to graduate studies. He believes that this is a “smokescreen” because two of the remaining chairs belong to subjects taught in the preliminary program. 

“The true and sad reason? Is it not that Melina...has remained faithful to Humanae vitae and Veritatis splendor, and the chair is eliminated in order to eliminate Melina?” he suggested.

Granados was equally dismissive of the reason given for the ouster of his religious superior, Fr. José Noriega, DCJM. The July 29 press release argued that Noriega’s role as the leader of a religious order was “incompatible” with his role as a professor of moral theology and was therefore in violation of canon law.  

The rule “prohibits only the assumption of two incompatible charges,” Granados told CNA.

“Are they incompatible in this case, when Fr. Noriega’s religious community has only 24 full members? The answer requires a prudential consideration. And the two people who were responsible for doing so, that is, the two previous presidents of the Institute, Melina and Sequeri, did not judge the two responsibilities incompatible, since they allowed Noriega to teach for 12 years, with his status as superior being public and well-known.”  

Moreover, Noriega’s term as superior ends in five months, as both Sequeri and Paglia are aware. Here, too, the problem may be loyalty to John Paul II’s theology. 

Granados suggested that if the “incompatibility” is not overcome by simply giving the professor a leave of absence, it is just an excuse to dismiss “the chair of love and marriage, and get rid of the person in charge of the Institute's publications.” 

“Is it perhaps Noriega’s favorability to Humanae vitae and Veritatis splendor?” he asked.

The Vice-President described the dismissals as “an abuse” and said it threatened the academic freedom of all the teachers.

“...If this abuse is allowed, the academic freedom of all teachers is threatened,” he told CNA.

“We are all facing the same problem: we could be expelled, not because we deny the doctrine of faith, which would be fair, but for following theological lines that university authorities dislike,” he continued. 

“From this point of view all of us who have a university chair can say: ‘I am Melina and Noriega.’” 

He decried the new powers given to Archbishop Paglia, a man whom George Weigel recently accused of “knee-capping scholars of impeccable scholarly credentials and personal probity, deeply beloved by their students.”

“With the powers that the Grand Chancellor now has, and the intentions that he reveals when dispensing with Melina and Noriega, it will be a matter of time to replace the teaching staff with another alien to the vision of St. John Paul II,” Granados stated. 

Featured Image
LifeSiteNews staff


TUNE IN TONIGHT: LifeSite Editor-in-Chief to discuss ban by Apple News on national radio

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

August 1, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) - LifeSite Editor-in-Chief and Co-Founder John-Henry Westen will be interviewed on national radio tonight about LifeSite’s recent ban from Apple News. 

Westen will speak with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, on his nationally syndicated Christian radio talk show Washington Watch. You can listen live at 5:32 pm EST/2:32 pm PST here or you can find the list of radio stations broadcasting the show here

We encourage you to tune-in to learn more about LifeSiteNew’s ban from the Apple News platform and to show your support for ending censorship. 

Only a week after finally being approved, the LifeSite channel was banned from Apple News for “intolerance towards a specific group.” The email informing LifeSiteNews of the ban contained no further explanation or an option to appeal the ban.

"We are awaiting Apple's response providing further details on their decision," added Westen. "But at face value, this decision looks like just another case of a tech company using their power to quietly censor conservative opinions, simply because they don't agree with them."

Our petition asking Apple to stop censorship has already reached 20,000 signatures! Join us in standing up to Big Tech by signing the petition today

We won’t stop fighting against the giants trying to silence the truth, but we need your help. You can help sustain our mission by becoming a monthly donor. Your monthly gift of any size helps ensure we can continue to bring you life changing news despite all the censorship from Big Tech. If you can’t commit to a monthly donation, you can make a one-time donation here. Thank you for your support and for speaking out against this outrage. 

Featured Image
LifeSiteNews staff


LifeSite petition to Apple News hits 50,000 signatures!

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

PETITION: Apple News bans popular pro-life site without warning: says it 'shows intolerance'  Sign the petition here.

August 1, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) - A LifePetitions petition asking Apple News to reinstate LifeSite’s Apple News channel has broken over 50,000 signatures in just a few days! THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SUPPORT! Apple’s banning of LifeSiteNews from Apple News is a blatant censorship of freedom of speech. The explosion of this petition is a great example of the frustration people are feeling about #BigTech censorship and the stripping away of our rights, but we can’t stop here!

The petition further explains LifeSite’s ban from the Apple News platform: Apple News has just banned LifeSite, the world's largest and most-popular pro-life and pro-family news website, from its Apple News platform.

Without any prior warning, Apple News informed us in an e-mail today: "Your channel has been disabled, and your content has been removed from Apple News."

This unfounded decision seems to be designed to silence LifeSiteNews. But, we will not be silenced, and we are not taking this lightly.

The response of this petition demonstrates the frustration of the American people against the mass censorship happening. Recently, Youtube, Google, Twitter, Pinterest, and many other social platforms have continued their brazen blocking, censoring, and deleting of conservative content. 

The conservative show, Louder with Crowder was recently demonetized on Youtube after being reported as insensitive by a gay Vox contributor. Pinterest deleted Live Action’s account after labeling the pro-life content as pornography. Youtube also recently denied an ad created by a veterans’ ministry for using an unacceptable keyword, ‘christian,’ while allowing the use of the keyword ‘muslim.’ LifeSite has continued to support and defend the attempted silencing of these conservative outlets while facing continually increasing censorship from Facebook

PETITION: Apple News bans popular pro-life site without warning: says it 'shows intolerance'  Sign the petition here.

President Trump has called out the aloof Big Tech companies on many occasions and recently highlighted the need to end censorship at the recent White House Media Summit. And recently, Dr. Robert Epstein, a liberal psychologist who publicly supported Hillary Clinton, has testified before congress that Google and Facebook has the ability to control elections without anyone’s knowledge. 

Yet Google, Facebook, Apple and the others have no response. They continue with their unapologetic censorship, ignoring the outcry of millions. They show no regard for the freedoms upon which our country was built. 

THIS HAS TO STOP. We need to speak up. WE NEED TO PERSIST AGAINST THE SILENCING OF CONSERVATIVE VOICES. If we do not fight, the culture will degrade even more rapidly. Join us in fighting Big Tech censorship. SIGN AND SHARE demanding that Apple stop censoring the news, and reinstate LifeSite's Apple News channel immediately.

We won’t stop fighting against the giants trying to silence the truth, but we need your help. You can help sustain our mission by becoming a monthly donor. Your monthly gift of any size helps ensure we can continue to bring you life changing news despite all the censorship from Big Tech. If you can’t commit to a monthly donation, you can make a one-time donation here. Thank you for your support and for speaking out against this outrage. 

Featured Image
Mikasi /
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News ,

Leaked internal email shows major abortion org warning against calling abortion safe, legal

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

August 1, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – An internal NARAL email has sparked confusion among pro-abortion activists this week for urging them not to use a range of common buzzwords for the procedure, based on directives the lobbying group has since claimed one of their field directors misunderstood.

On Tuesday, Splinter published an email from NARAL deputy field director Travis Ballie to field staffers and volunteers warning them not to say or write “Abortion should be/is safe and legal,” “Abortion is healthcare,” “Abortion is normal,” or “Abortion rights are human rights.” Ballie didn’t give a rationale, but said the organization would be organizing staff training sessions to explain why “extensive poll and focus group testing of messaging to voters and the general public” weighs against such terms.

Instead, he advised activists to “follow NARAL on Twitter and Facebook for real-time approved messages you can use,” and to consult an attached memo that frames abortion as “freedom” for “women and their families,” and “personal medical decisions.”

The memo sparked confusion due to not only the common nature of the prohibited language, but the fact that NARAL itself has used or promoted all of it within the past month:

Ballie refused to comment on the matter, but a NARAL spokesperson told Splinter the deputy field director seemed to have misunderstood the directives he had received. Ballie’s email “spoke in a way that was not entirely accurate,” the representative said. “I have no idea where he got that from.”

The spokesperson explained that Ballie was apparently operating off of a messaging document that had been shared “with lead volunteers in an attempt to provide them with some messaging guidance,” and seemed to have wrongly inferred that the language should be abandoned because it wasn’t among the language that the document had identified as “the latest and greatest in terms of our findings.”

Regardless, pro-lifers have long disputed rhetoric that declares abortion “safe” due to its litany of health risks, a “human right” due to the fact that it kills another human being, or “healthcare” because killing a child for economic, emotional, or lifestyle reasons doesn’t fit healthcare’s traditional meaning of treating physical or mental illness or injury, to preserve life and restore or maximize an individual’s physical or mental well-being.

Featured Image
Emily Zinos

Opinion , ,

LGBT crusaders have gone too far. People are starting to tune out.

Emily Zinos

August 1, 2019 (Family Beacon) — The Accelerating Acceptance survey from the LGBT media monitoring organization, GLAAD recently uncovered a dramatic drop in "LGBT acceptance" among young adults aged 18–34. Taken aback, LGBT activists immediately laid the blame on "an increase in hateful rhetoric in our culture", but a more likely explanation is that the consequences of the LGBT movement have come home to roost, and the resulting effects on women's rights, child health, and First Amendment protections are just too glaring to ignore.

The 2019 Accelerating Acceptance Report asked American adults how comfortable they would be in a variety of social interactions with LGBT-identified people. Study participants weighed in on seven scenarios, including finding out their child had a lesson on LGBT history in school, learning a family member is LGBT, and discovering that their child's teacher is LGBT. Respondents who stated they were "very" or "somewhat" comfortable in all seven LGBT-related scenarios were classified as "allies" by GLAAD. It was the "ally" category that took the biggest hit in the survey. In the 2016 GLAAD survey, 62 percent of young men ages 18–34 were classified as "allies"; in 2018, that number had dropped to just 35 percent. For women aged 18–34, the number of allies dropped from 65 percent in 2016, to 52 percent in 2018. If young people are supposed to be the staunchest supporters of all things LGBT, then things aren't looking good for the movement.

The GLAAD survey has been capturing American attitudes towards LGBT identified people since 2016, one year after same-sex "marriage" was rendered legal by the Supreme Court. That was the year that the LGBT lobby went into full T mode, funneling all their money and organizing clout into transgender "inclusion". The same old equal rights slogans were put right back to work, this time with the aim of cajoling everyone into believing it's a form of bigotry to accurately recognize a person's sex. But as 'Love is Love' faded into 'Transwomen are Women', something else happened: consequences. Lots and lots of them.

There was the Obama bathroom mandate, when many of us came to realize that "inclusion"  meant boys in our daughters' locker rooms. Then we learned that "diversity" requires that library toddler story time be led by drag queens. And who could forget the headlines exclaiming "sex is a spectrum!" and "men can get pregnant, too!"? Privacy, decency, and science, cut down in one fell swoop. 

In fact, I could do a quick Google search and turn up thousands of incidents that should shake anyone out of his diversity and inclusion slumber: there is the Canadian man pretending he's a woman who has filed human rights complaints against a number of female estheticians who (rightly!) refuse to wax his genitalia, there's the California gender specialist who is referring thirteen-year-old girls for "gender affirming" double mastectomies, the lone lesbian on the Baltimore City LGBT commission who lost her post after stating that male rapists should never be housed in women's prisons, the French teacher from Virginia who was fired for refusing to use 'preferred pronouns', and the Samoan female powerlifter who lost her bid for Gold in the 2019 Pacific Games when a man identifying as a woman predictably bested her lift. Sappy slogans can't stand up to real consequences that, in some cases, have utterly destroyed people's lives. The fact is, it's becoming harder and harder to make that case that the LGBT movement is about equal rights and easier and easier to point out how this movement erodes rights. If actions speak louder than activism, then it's obvious that this movement could not care less about women and girls, about kids making it to healthy adulthood, or about our cherished First Amendment freedoms. 

But GLAAD CEO and president, Sarah Kate Ellis, isn't interested. Though I fully agree with Ellis that the LGBT movement has taken it for granted that young people are "a beacon of progressive values", the rest of her take on the survey results is deeply naive. The GLAAD CEO offers two explanations for the drop in LGBT "allies": First, Ellis blames the "Trump factor", claiming that the current administration has perpetuated "rhetorical attacks" against the LGBTQ community. Second, Ellis cites something she calls "the newness factor", which she defines as the discomfort that results from a lack of familiarity with the neo-identities that teens are claiming, like genderqueer, non-binary, and pansexual. 

Let's take the "newness factor" first. I won't disagree with Ellis that 18- to 34-year-olds might get uncomfortable when their co-worker announces his zie/zir pronouns and asks everyone to pretend he doesn't have a sex, but I think the discomfort stems from something called "annoyance" or maybe "exasperation" instead of surprise. Being forced to play the neo-identity game gets a little tiring, especially for those who've recently spent a few years on a college campus.

As for the so-called "rhetorical attacks" that Ellis referred to, those started in 2017, when the Trump administration began working to untangle the legal quagmires transgender activism had created. There was the rescinding of the Obama "bathroom mandate" in 2017, which revoked the Executive Order that forced public schools across the nation to mix boys and girls in the same restrooms or face loss of federal funding. Then, in 2018, the Bureau of Prisons in the Department of Justice adopted a policy that called for housing transgender-identified inmates according to sex in federal prison facilities, clarifying that female inmates deserve privacy and safety protections.

In May of this year, the Department of Health and Human Services published a proposed rule that would remove "gender identity" from the definition of sex in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), preventing violations of medical practitioners' conscience rights to refuse to perform "gender reassignment" procedures. That these efforts were read as an "attack" by GLAAD is telling. Clearly, they don't care one iota about basic-level defense of legal sex distinctions and conscience rights.

Worst of all, transgender-identified people are increasingly realizing that the movement supposedly fighting on their behalf has left them out in the cold. Where is GLAAD's advocacy when hurting young people need therapy to recover from years of pretending to be something they're not? Where is GLAAD's advocacy when someone detransitions and needs to heal from unneeded surgeries? And where is GLAAD's legal fund to help people put the accurate sex marker back on their ID? Answer: GLAAD is nowhere to be found. 

GLAAD needs to wake up to the fact that buyer's remorse has set in for many of those who once supported the LGBT movement. All that time, money, and effort spent on injecting society and the law with transgender ideas is only serving to erode support for their actions as young people realize that LGBT ideas come with serious consequences. Try as they might, GLAAD can never overcome reality with well-funded activism.

Emily Zinos is the Project Coordinator for Ask Me First MN, a project of Minnesota Family Council.

Published with permission from the Minnesota Family Council.

Featured Image
Ryan Bomberger Ryan Bomberger Follow Ryan

Blogs , , ,

Spinelessness won’t cut it in defending our kids from transgender confusion

Ryan Bomberger Ryan Bomberger Follow Ryan
By Ryan Bomberger

August 1, 2019 (Radiance Foundation) — Mario, oh Mario. What did you just jump into?

You spoke common sense about children not making drastic life-altering decisions about sexuality at the age of 3. You know, because toddlers who think they're fish, or dinosaurs, or fairies, or dogs, or any number of imaginary things are authorities on gender and sexuality. Your interview with Candace Owens was so...reasonable. But Tinseltown had no tolerance for basic truths about our humanity and parental responsibility.

So the cult of transgenderism swiftly wielded its fierceness and caused a father to cower in fear. Never mind the dangers we willingly open children up to when we push LGBTQXYZ pseudoscience. There are many well-documented reasons why medical professionals consider "gender ideology" to be extremely harmful to kids. The American College of Pediatricians, which embraces science instead of activism, lays out those reasons here

Too many Americans — including Mario — allow themselves to be silenced while the new sexual revolution claims more and more younger victims.

Sorry, Hollywood. Parents need to guide their children's decisions, not the other way around. If "self-identity" is reality, then I'm a movie star. I deserve to be treated like one. I want my star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. I want access to all of the posh restaurants and A-list parties. I want to profit from gun violence in my movies while denouncing it in the real world. I want to decry #MeToo sexual exploitation while being obsessed with reckless sexual behavior in my films. I want to call everyone a racist while I work for an industry still steeped in it. I want to tell people about "emotional safety" for children as I celebrate my fifth marriage. I want to preach about "being who you really are" as I emerge, unrecognizable, from my sixth plastic surgery. No one can challenge how I "identify" because facts are hateful, and feelings are healing. Oh. And in my pursuit of temporal happiness that will inevitably spiral into irreversible regret, people need to pay for my "transition."

The Human Rights Campaign (whose co-founder and previous president, Terrance Bean, paid the reported victim $225,000 to settle a pedophilia lawsuit) thinks teaching children actual biological science is "dangerous to the safety and well-being of LGBTQ youth, especially trans children who deserve to be loved and accepted for who they are." I guess they mean little boys being dolled up and paraded around in a gay bar to the applause and cheers of adulating gay men? Eleven year old "Desmond Is Amazing", a confused boy with autism, is thrust into an overly sexualized adult world and that's "safety and well-being"? That's being "loved and accepted"? According to this Fatherly article, his mom looks forward to this being a "full-time gig." How heartbreaking. 

As parents, something should stir inside of us to see this for what it is — brokenness. While mainstream media celebrated a 11-year-old boy in drag being sexualized in a gay bar, who would be celebrating the same if it were a dad hustling his 11-year-old daughter in a "gentlemen's club"? 

When it comes to LGBT ideology, our society is losing its ever-lovin' mind. Acts that would not be acceptable in any other context are celebrated and adorned with rainbows and sparkles. 

Our culture is obsessed with sex. It always has been. And children have long been the targets of those who want no sexual boundaries. They've advanced in their euphemistic language of justification. You're homophobic if you think children shouldn't be sexualized and exposed to pornography or groped at by grown men or women. You're hateful if you don't think a child should be pumped with carcinogenic puberty blockers to dangerously counter what biology determined at conception. You're a bigot if you don't want your tax dollars going to your local library to bring in drag queens to "read" to your children and have those kids lie on top of them

Sorry. I had to step away from the keyboard for a moment. WHAT in the actual...I won't curse, but there's a holy anger that wells up inside of me when I think of how we are allowing the sexual and emotional destruction of our children under the very symbol of a rainbow that was a promise, from God, to withhold destruction.

Men. Rise up. Stop being kicked to the periphery by a predatory culture that depends on your absence. Stop being bullied by an LGBT industry that wants to tell you how to be men. Stop being silent when leftist politicians and judges want to obliterate gender and celebrate confusion. Stop standing around while boys who "identify" as girls are pummeling your high school daughters in track and field. Alliance Defending Freedom is working tirelessly to protect girls and actual womanhood from being erased. 

Why aren't fathers, from coast to coast, working as hard toward this same goal?

You could have been super, Mario. You could've risen above the mindless groupthink of Hollywood. You could've shown your children what it means to show courage and conviction instead of capitulation. You allowed yourself to be bullied by LGBT Inc and say words you obviously don't believe. The irony in all of this is that you weren't allowed to be who you are. That special privilege, apparently, is only for the self-proclaimed tolerant. 

Perhaps in the land of make-believe, this inverted model of parenting — where children dictate reality — works under all the make-up, lighting rigs, fake environments and scripted outcomes. But in the real world, bad parenting decisions have dangerous consequences for our children. And we don't protect them by affirming the thousands of fleeting moments of confusion they will have in their lives. Loving our children, deeply, means we're unafraid to speak truth even while everyone else is shouting a lie. 

Published with permission from the Radiance Foundation.

Featured Image
Peter Kwasniewski Peter Kwasniewski Follow Dr. Peter

Blogs , ,

Even married Christians are called to embrace poverty, chastity, and obedience

Peter Kwasniewski Peter Kwasniewski Follow Dr. Peter
By Dr. Peter Kwasniewski

August 1, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – In the Middle Ages, every member of Christendom lived under a common law: the law of the Gospel as taught by the Church. There were not two worlds, two standards, the sacred and the profane; there was but one, which unified all things around the Cross. Hence this society was hierarchical but not clericalist. Clericalism is the sclerosis of hierarchy. It occurs when hierarchy ceases to be a vital, internal principle of cohesion, recognized as the mouthpiece for a commonly-held Christianity, and becomes instead an externalized imposition.

If we follow St. Thomas Aquinas’s theology of marriage, which was fairly representative of the age in which he lived, we can say that married life was not seen as worldly to the exclusion of the demands of the sacred, nor was clerical and religious life seen as sacred to the exclusion of this world’s needs, but rather both were perceived as sacred realities belonging to the Church as expressions of Catholic life, and both were meant to bear fruit for the Kingdom of heaven: marriage by helping spouses to beget and educate citizens of the Kingdom, the clergy and religious by seeking first the Kingdom of God in their liturgical prayer, and then teaching and feeding the faithful with spiritual goods (and often enough, material goods). Marriage itself will no longer exist in the heavenly Kingdom, but, with the exception of Adam and Eve who were fashioned directly by God, all who are in the Kingdom are the welcome fruits of marriage, and this is precisely its great dignity: to be the unsurpassably vivid symbol and humble handmaid of ultimate heavenly joy, an indispensable midwife to the glorious City of God.

Hence, marriage in the period of Christendom was understood within the logic of the Gospel. It was not viewed as a worldly affair of self-determination and pleasure at one’s will; it involved penance and self-control, even as clerical and religious life did. During the Middle Ages Catholic spouses were routinely expected to abstain from marital relations many times during the year, including the whole of the Lenten season. Abstinence from the “use of marriage” appears to have been expected, if not obligatory, for a total of several months each year. Sexual self-restraint was an ascetical routine of periodic continence that we have not seen the likes of for hundreds of years, and a good case can be made that this loss has been detrimental to the spiritual lives of the married (cf. 1 Cor 7:5; 7:35). 

The main point is that marriage was then recognized to be a true via crucis, a way to carry one’s daily cross in the footsteps of Christ. For all their differences, the married state and the religious and clerical states enjoyed a profound unity—the unity of the Christian virtues, with charity as their queen mother. The love of man and woman, and their love for their children, had to be a love of charity, not a mere earthly affection. All the demands of supernatural charity, beginning with the very demand that it have primacy over all aspects of human life, were in force in the domestic church. 

However much the beautiful face of Christendom has been disfigured by wars, plagues, and revolutions over the last five hundred years, this primacy of charity remains true today, since the intrinsic nature of sacramental marriage has not changed, nor have its lofty aims and requirements.

An important consequence was seen clearly by St. Thomas Aquinas in his treatise On the Perfection of the Spiritual Life—namely, that even if only a few Christians embrace the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience to their full extent in imitation of the Redeemer’s way of life on earth, all Christians are called to live out their essential meaning. No less than those “dead to the world,” Christians “living in the world” must also be poor in spirit, pure in heart, and obedient to God’s word and the word of the Church. More specifically, they must strive to be frugal in bodily goods, ready for bodily continence, and obedient in the family structure. In other words, poverty, chastity, and obedience are to be lived, both in spirit and in flesh, by all Christians according to their states in life and the needs and demands of different stages in their lives. 

Married couples know this from experience: such circumstances as sickness, injuries, pregnancies, travel or work demands, and the simple fact of aging make abstinence unavoidable. Moral virtue is required if the spouses are to accept these periods with a generous spirit of charity and self-denial, and turn them into meritorious temporary continence for the Kingdom. The same is true with the use of wealth and the relinquishment of independent activities outside the home that no longer suit the common good of the family.

It is a tragedy that much of the teaching of Sacred Scripture on the family, as well as much of the wisdom of the patristic and medieval tradition, has been discarded due to plain embarrassment or, worse, a modernistic view that the moral dictates of Scripture are culturally determined and thus replaceable by the more “enlightened” code of behavior that men and women of the modern West deem themselves to possess. As I pointed out in a lecture, even the Catechism of the Catholic Church succumbs at times to this temptation to follow the Zeitgeist instead of the Holy Ghost. Fortunately we are possessed of a rich and consistent heritage that guides the faithful aright, even when churchmen at a particular moment in history are culpably confused.

Featured Image
Pope Francis after election on the loggia, Rome, March 13, 2013.
Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike


‘British coup’: Author claims UK gov’t may have helped in Pope Francis’ 2013 election

Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike
By Maike Hickson

August 1, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Catherine Pepinster, the former editor-in-chief of the British Catholic weekly, The Tablet, published two years ago a book in which she claims that the British Foreign Office may have played an important role in the 2013 papal election that resulted in Pope Francis' election. Based on many interviews with key figures such as Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor and the British Ambassador to the Holy See, Nigel Baker, she claims that the UK “played a crucial role in the election of the Argentinian destined to shake up the Catholic Church.” 

In her 2017 book The Keys and the Kingdom. The British and the Papacy from John Paul II to Francis, Pepinster deals with the growing relations between Rome and England over the course of several decades, especially also in light of the history of the Reformation and the particular situation of Catholics in England.

Pepinster sees that, with the election of Pope Francis, a new sort of relationship is developing. She states that “Britons have more influence in Rome today than they ever have done before in the last 100 years.” 

The reason as to why the British government would take interest in the election of a new pope is also explained by the author. She quotes here Nigel Baker, the Ambassador to the Holy See, who said in 2014: “We have an embassy to the Holy See because of the extent of the Holy See soft power network, the influence of the pope, and the global reach and perspective of papal diplomacy focused on preserving and achieving peace, on the protection of the planet, and on bringing people out of poverty.”

Pepinster recounts in her book how the British government, through the person of the British ambassador to the Holy See, was instrumental in setting up a meeting where key cardinals networked with lesser-known cardinals to promote Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio for pope. 

Calling Bergoglio's election a "very British coup," Pepinster's work suggests that a secular power was involved in the election of a pope.

Pepinster writes that already under Pope Benedict XVI, there was a time of “consolidation for the relationship between the British and the papacy.”

“That growing connection between the papacy and the United Kingdom,” she adds, “was in many ways a recognition of the usefulness of the two entities' own global networks. It is worth examining next how, in March 2013, one occasion did bring these networks together to such dramatic and significant effect that it would change the Catholic Church's course of history.”

Let us now examine how the British were to a certain extent involved in the election of Pope Francis, a man “who would shake up not only the Catholic Church but its relations with the world, and who would try to reshape the institution of the papacy itself.”

First looking back at the 2005 election of Pope Benedict, Pepinster quotes a Tablet article from that time which pointed out that the cardinals who had come from less important and wealthy countries had been left out of the private meetings of cardinals that are traditionally used as means of building an opinion as to who the next Pope should be. The Tablet then wrote that “some [cardinals], especially from the developing world, were living at the outskirts of the city and had no entourage, let alone press secretaries”; they therefore “would have been unaware of the intimate gatherings of cardinals over whiskies or quiet lunches to discuss strategies for the forthcoming election.” 

Without naming names, Pepinster goes on to describe how, in 2013, “there was concern that the developing world cardinals could be left on the sidelines again,” since they do not have at their disposal their own countries' embassies in Rome which they could use for receptions or for dinners. 

Further describing the situation in 2013 after Pope Benedict's resignation, the author says that “factions had already opened up” among the cardinals, with the curial cardinals being split into two camps – one in favor of Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the other in support of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone.

“Meanwhile,” she continues, “four leading European cardinal reformers – Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Walter Kasper, Godfried Danneels and Karl Lehmann, all of whom were thought to have backed Jorge Bergoglio in the 2005 conclave – realized that these splits afforded them an opportunity.” They had supporters for their cause among Latin American and some influential Europeans voters, she explains. 

Pepinster quoted papal biographer Austen Ivereigh and his statement that there were 11 African and 10 Asian cardinals, and that “for the ones from historically English-speaking nations, the British cardinal, Murphy-O'Connor, was a reference point, and key to bringing them onside.”

“This is where the UK made a substantial contribution to the run-up to the 2013 conclave,” writes Pepinster.

Conversations among people in senior positions in the Church in London and Rome led to the realization that there was a major overlap between the developing world and the British Commonwealth. Where better to host a gathering for the cardinals who had no real base than the UK embassy to the Holy See?

The idea that the British could provide a meeting place for the cardinals from emerging nations and also use such an event as a networking opportunity for people from the Commonwealth was put to the UK ambassador Nigel Baker, who then discussed it with Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor. It led to a reception on behalf of the British government for cardinals from Commonwealth nations that took place at the ambassador’s residence at the Palazzo Pallavincini. 

Pepinster does not state who had this idea in the first place and when this reception specifically took place, but Gerard O'Connell's book on this conclave states that it took place on March 7, with Cardinal Gracias and Turkson also present.

Noteworthy here is that, by means of this meeting, the UK government helped Murphy-O'Connor to organize those cardinal electors from poorer countries who might have been otherwise left out from any more organized preparation of the 2013 conclave that ended up electing Pope Francis. Two conservative English-speaking cardinals – Cardinal George Pell, as well as Cardinal Marc Ouellet – were significantly left out of that meeting at the British embassy.

“The most significant guest” at that gathering was, according to the book author, Murphy-O'Connor. Even though he was too old to be able to vote at the conclave, this British cardinal “had a highly significant role to play that night at the Palazzo Pallavicini,” Pepinster explains. And since another cardinal from the UK, Scotland's Keith O'Brien, did not participate at the conclave due to the scandals surrounding him, the UK had only one cardinal – Sean Brady of Northern Ireland – in that conclave.

To return to that fateful gathering in the embassy, “the focus was on those from the poorer nations,” according to Pepinster. “Quite what Murphy-O'Connor said to the cardinals that night is not known.” As Baker told Pepinster, at some point he had left the room to leave the “cardinal to it.” At some point in the evening, the waiting staff also left the room, thus enabling the cardinal “to have a few minutes of totally confidential chat with the red hats from the south.”

Describing the outcome of that March 12-13 conclave, Pepinster points out that Jorge Bergoglio had finally been elected by 115 cardinals, eighty of which came from Europe and North America. She continues: “The other thirty-five were from the rest of the world; left out in the cold during the lobbying in 2005, a sizeable number had been drawn into the process far more effectively in 2013, thanks to the Foreign Office and an English cardinal who understood both Rome and Jorge Bergoglio.”

If Pepinster's account implies here that a foreign government had a role to play in the election of a pope, this should justly cause concern. This report certainly should lead to further inquiries also as to the involvement of British foreign intelligence assets.

She continues, saying that even though the UK had at the time merely one voting cardinal at the conclave, thus seeming to have been “banished to the sidelines,” it played nevertheless “a crucial role in the election of the Argentinian destined to shake up the Catholic Church with his drive for reform and his peacemaking.” Pepinster insists on this point by additionally quoting Tim Fischer, the former Australian ambassador to the Holy See, who stated: “The British influence on the conclave was against all the odds, yet it happened. That was down to one of the most capable cardinals I've ever met – Cormac Murphy-O'Connor – playing the most powerful non-voting role in the choosing of a pope I've ever known.”

Moreover, Catherine Pepinster told the British Telegraph in 2017: “Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor was a popular, genial man but beneath his jovial exterior was someone of great canniness who knew exactly how the Vatican worked. And that canniness meant he ensured his friend was elected Pope Francis – a pope who has made a huge impact on the Catholic Church and the world. There have been kingmakers in history; Cormac Murphy-O’Connor turned out to be a popemaker.”

Or, as Pope Francis himself put it a few months after his election and during a papal audience with Murphy-O'Connor present: The pope pointed to his old friend and said, “You’re to blame!” 

August 2, 2019 update: This report has been updated with more quotes from Pepinster's book as well as correctly designating what areas in the UK certain cardinals came from.

View specific date
Print All Articles