When Protesters Knock Holes in the Free Speech Bus, They Knock Holes in the Truth About Sexuality

/0 Comments/in , /by

My situation was familiar enough: I was waiting for a bus. My circumstances were somewhat unique, though, because I’d been waiting several days.

I was waiting for the “#FreeSpeechBus.” It’s a project of the National Organization for Marriage, along with CitizenGO and the International Organization for the Family. This bus is hard to miss: It’s bright orange, emblazoned with a message calculated to garner attention. Figures of a girl and boy, marked “XX” and “XY,” stand beside the words, “Boys are boys […] Girls are girls … and always will be. It’s biology.”

Aiming to spark renewed discussion over the rush toward transgender rights, the bus launched two Thursdays ago in Manhattan with a small press event. That afternoon, the trip came screeching to a halt. Figuratively, that is: for the bus was parked, when protesters spray-painted the sides with graffiti messages about “trans liberation,” and smashed holes in its windows with a hammer.

Buzzfeed Gets It Wrong

Though little noted Thursday morning, the bus quickly made headlines following the attack. Buzzfeed proclaimed, “This Bus Is On A Road Trip To Convince You That Transgender People Aren’t Real.”

Now, as the representative quoted in that piece, I can surmise the basis for this spurious charge. Asked whether we believe a “trans woman” is a woman, I answered, “No. We believe if you were born a man, you’re a man.” I stand by that. I object, though, to the claim in the headline. The article itself reveals the unfair inference: for I am also cited saying transgender people suffer a disorder. I stand by this as well.

Buzzfeed thinks I deny the “reality” of a class of people because I think they have a disorder. By “reality” they mean a group who must be approved as they are. Of course I believe transgendered people are real. I believe they are due respect and kindness. But I have to reject the notion that a person with male genitalia and a Y chromosome who “identifies” as a woman is, in fact, a woman. That’s what upsets Buzzfeed.

Another point Buzzfeed misconstrued is one of the tour’s key goals. I expressed a hope that people would speak up — to business owners, bosses, public officials — when they feel uncomfortable with persons of the opposite sex using their locker rooms or other intimate facility. I wasn’t calling for a witch hunt, nor declaring open season for bullying.

Compassion For All

I had been asked why we don’t hear many complaints in places where transgender “bathroom bills” have been implemented. I opined that this might have to do with the fact that people are afraid to speak up.

When one is labelled a “hater” or “bigot” for daring to disagree with the trans agenda, it’s small wonder more people don’t complain. As it happens, though, plenty do complain: We just don’t hear about it.

Take, for example, the lawsuit filed last week in Pennsylvania. A high school boy, uncomfortable undressing in front of a female peer who is now allowed to use the boys’ locker-room, approached the administration. They told him to “act natural.” His parents — the school hadn’t told them about the policy, by the way — received the same airy dismissal when they complained.

The Pennsylvania case indicates another aspect of the stilted reporting on our big orange bus. Generally, the press treats our campaign as lacking compassion. But we do have compassion: we just ask it for all involved.

We are compassionate toward those suffering gender dysphoria. But we are also compassionate to that boy in Pennsylvania and the many, many people like him. His concerns — his feelings, privacy, his body image, his struggles through the turbulent time of puberty — are ignored. He doesn’t matter. He is closed-minded and should lighten up, we are told. His needs are brushed aside in favor of his biologically female peer invading his privacy.

She Doesn’t Count Either

The problem’s even worse when a man invades women’s spaces. Here may be a woman suffering trauma: who, because of past victimization from a sexually violent man has a hard enough time disrobing in front of her peers — even in front of a mirror! — who has every right to be uncomfortable with the status quo progressio.

But she doesn’t count either. She, too, is labeled hateful and bigoted if she complains. She, too, should just lighten up. That man isn’t hurting her, we are told — by those who evidently have no idea how trauma works. Yes, in fact, he is.

After a few days, the #FreeSpeechBus got back on its route, and I was aboard. I hope that the advocates of tolerance don’t respond again to an idea with which they disagree by striking it with a hammer. My greater hope is that the bus and its message won’t be missed: because it is a message of simple truth about biology, and of compassion for those whose voices have been lost in this debate. (For more from the author of “When Protesters Knock Holes in the Free Speech Bus, They Knock Holes in the Truth About Sexuality” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Coffee Shop’s Reward Card Makes It Look Like Trump, Conservatives Shot in Head

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A Pittsburgh coffee shop is offering incentives for its customers with a satirical punch card with images of President Donald Trump and conservative leaders.

The front of the rewards card is relatively benign, with 10 of the Black Forge Coffee House logos to punch, reports Fox News. But the back features 10 people management does not care for: Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, former Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee, infamous hedge fund founder Martin Shkreli, media mogul Pat Robertson, and three political pundits: Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh.

When staff perforate the card to keep track of the perk, a hole appears on the picture of the figure. Some say the punctures in the card, which can eventually be redeemed for a free cup of coffee, make it look like the conservative icons are being shot in the head.

“We are definitely not advocating violence,” said Nick Miller, co-owner of the Black Forge Coffee House, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “This is purely political satire statement and an expression of frustration with the system” . . .

“It’s definitely been a rough couple of days. It escalated quickly and not to the intent that we wanted,” Ashley Corts, co-owner of the heavy metal themed shop, said in reference to the amount of adverse reactions they have received. According to Corts, several people called and made threatening statements, such as the suggestion that “someone should put bullets in our heads.”

(Read more from “Coffee Shop’s Reward Card Makes It Look Like Trump, Conservatives Shot in Head” HERE)

Ex-Navy SEAL Creates Veterans Organization to Expose Pedophiles and Rescue Trafficked Children

/0 Comments/in , /by

To those paying attention, they are able to see the world has a horrifying problem with pedophilia and child trafficking. They are also able to see that the corporate media and the ruling class do very little to expose it — and, in fact, are often exposed for participating in it. However, an ex-Navy SEAL and several other veterans are attempting to stop this.

Veterans For Child Rescue (V4CR), as they note on their new website, “was formed specifically to EXPOSE that which has been covered up and suppressed – the dark and disgusting world of pedophile trafficking rings. These rings include members from every level of our society and involve unthinkable trauma inflicted upon innocent babies and children – the soul of our nation.”

The group, which is in the process of forming a 501c3 non-profit, was started by Former Navy SEAL Craig Sawyer and their aim is simple — expose child trafficking across the nation and save children from torture.

“Until now, pedophiles have enjoyed a counter-productive level of privacy from the media. That puts more children at risk,” a crowd-funding page for the organization states.

Together, we can work with federal and local law enforcement to help arrest these predators and liberate the child victims.

According to Veterans for Child Rescue, the members of the group make ups a VIPR Team (Veterans Investigating Pedophile Rings), and come from the highest levels of Military Special Operations, Federal Law Enforcement, International Counter-Poaching Operations, The Intelligence Community, The Diplomatic Community and Film & Television.

“This abuse must first be brought to light before it can be cleaned up. V4CR was created to shine that light! We will expose this crisis through joint operations with law enforcement and sharing the truth in an unflinching television documentary-series for the world to see. Through this, we hope to force stronger punitive legislation and create a non-permissive public environment to help reverse this life-shattering trend of abuse,” a statement on the group’s website reads.

As the Free Thought Project has consistently reported, these sickos dominate positions of authority and high-level government roles — worldwide. And when people come forward to expose them, they are met by the Praetorian guard who quickly labels such talk as conspiracy theory and pushes it to the fringe.

The YouCaring page that was set up to raise money for V4CR was pulled without notice on Friday and they were not given a reason, except that it was in “violation of our terms of service.”

While there is definitely no shortage of conspiracy theories on the matter, the facts we do know are horrific enough to cause grave concern.

As the Free Thought Project has pointed out, pedophilia among the elite is rampant. The problem has gotten so bad in England that officials issued an order last month to stop naming streets and landmarks after local heroes and politicians because they could later be exposed as pedophiles.

In February, the Free Thought Project reported on the fact that the police chief recently came forward and confirmed that the former Prime Minister of England, Sir Edward Heath, had raped dozens of children. The department also noted how those within the government helped cover up these crimes.

In December, we reported on the massive child sex ring that was blown apart in Norway. That investigation quickly led to arrests of “51 people, all men, (who) are so far involved in the case. 24 of them come from Hordaland and Sogn og Fjordane. 26 come from other areas of Norway, from Southeast to Finnmark in the north. Among the accused offenders, there is also one Swedish national. Two politicians, one Labor politician from Oslo and a former national Progress Party (FrP) politician from Eastern Norway are involved in the case.” One is also a kindergarten teacher, and four of the 51 arrested were perpetrators in the video evidence collected.

Domestically, however, these higher level arrests are few and far between as anytime ‘the elite’ are mentioned alongside the term ‘pedophile,’ the corporate media, shout down all those who dare pose any questions.

Case in point, former speaker of the house, Dennis Hastert.

In January, admitted child rapist and former speaker of the house who is currently in jail, Dennis Hastert came across our radar after he demanded one of the children he raped pay back the hush money given to him by Hastert — because he broke his silence about the rape.

Hastert admitted to raping little boys, yet he’s in jail for fraud, not pedophilia.

The good news is that because people are refusing to be silenced, the coverage of human trafficking even hit the mainstream last month in a horrifying episode of Dr. Phil. A former victim, who was born into the sex trafficking trade, came forward to implicate high-level government officials as well as police and civilians in their role in the trade.

According to the anti-Human Trafficking group, Polaris, located in D.C., the number of trafficked humans in the US is startling.

Since 2007, the National Human Trafficking Hotline, operated by Polaris, has received reports of 22,191 sex trafficking cases inside the United States.

In 2016, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children estimated that 1 in 6 endangered runaways reported to them were likely sex trafficking victims.

The International Labor Organization estimates that there are 4.5 million people trapped in forced sexual exploitation globally.

In a 2014 report, the Urban Institute estimated that the underground sex economy ranged from $39.9 million in Denver, Colorado, to $290 million in Atlanta, Georgia.

It is time to do something about this madness — and V4CR is doing just that. In spite of YouCaring pulling down their fundraiser, the group has started another at GoFundMe. As of Monday, they’ve already raised close to ten percent of their $500,000 goal.

(For more from the author of “Ex-Navy SEAL Creates Veterans Organization to Expose Pedophiles and Rescue Trafficked Children” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

And Then You Can Kill the Baby … Provided You Read the Right Font First

/0 Comments/in , /by

Down through the annals of time, there have been some memorable quotes to inspire humanity to do away with grave injustices.

Recall this recognizable abolitionist battle cry: “You can’t own another human being unless his papers are properly notarized!”

Riveting.

Or maybe you’ll remember how the women’s suffrage movement was spurred to action by Susan B. Anthony’s “if you like it, then you should’ve put a ring on it.”
Spine tingling.

I could go on citing others, but they would all pale in comparison to this ultimate mic drop courtesy of the Kansas state legislature: “you can’t kill that baby until you read our 12-point, Times New Roman font first!”

That’s right. The latest “pro-life” bill from one of the reddest states in the Union says it’s okay to kill a kid, provided you read some disclaimer information first. Which the state demands be written in 12-point, Times New Roman font. Apparently we’re now more concerned about layout uniformity than we are when life begins, or the One we’re responsible to for not protecting it.

Move over Braveheart, Knute Rockne, and Winston Churchill — for you now have company in the fiery quote department. C.S. Lewis, J.R.R Tolkien, or Maya Angelou, couldn’t have coined a phrase any better. In fact, it might just be time to go ahead and retire the English language altogether after this. For I can’t imagine anyone commanding our native tongue with more panache.

I kid, though, because I care.

For several reasons, the pro-life cause is my top priority. To wit:

It’s more than a litmus test, it’s a window to the soul. If I’ve learned one thing during my decade-plus in politics, it’s that I can tell you exactly how principled and trusted an elected official will be based solely on their stance on life.

It’s the gateway unalienable right. As Reagan once said, “All of your other God-given rights are sort of a moot point if you don’t have the right to life.”

The most precious natural resource for any civilization is its children. They represent future existence itself, let alone a culture’s hopes for the next generation, and the sustaining of its way of life. For example, who knows what precious talent has been wasted among the 56 million American babies we’ve killed the past 44 years. Could one of them have discovered the cure for cancer, pioneered a new clean and renewable energy source, or made some other transformative contribution to society?

My 15-year old mother had a choice to make once Roe v. Wade was declared. Thankfully, for me, she chose life when so many others in her situation did not. Nothing drives home the point of what we’re really talking about here than realizing you were one decision away from being unjustifiably executed.

Finally, if those reasons aren’t good enough for you try this one. The maker of Heaven and Earth, not exactly a being you want to be on the wrong side of, says He “hates hands that shed innocent blood.”

More Americans have perished via the abortion holocaust than all the wars this country has fought in combined. If the amount of persons we’ve killed via abortion were their own country, they’d be the 24th most populous nation on Earth. With more people than Spain, South Africa, Iraq, Australia, and Canada.

Needless to say, the abortion holocaust is the moral crisis of the age. And yet, when staring into the mouth of madness, the best we can muster against such evil is this bureaucratic drivel. But before you get on your high horse, consider this is actually an upgrade compared to what some pro-lifers were advocating in Montana in 2015. Where they wanted a bill that said it was perfectly fine to kill a kid provided he/she was anesthetized first.

At least what Kansas is pulling here is just another lame attempt to earn some pro-life Webelos badge for politicians, so they can claim they did something by doing nothing. I mean, could you imagine the homosexual lobby being satisfied with “you can still get your ‘marriage’ license, provided you read Romans 1 in the original King James first?” Yeah, me neither. But they actually are trying to win, so they don’t pull nor are satisfied with cheap political parlor tricks like this.

Sadly, what was being advocated in Montana wasn’t lame but wrong. Imagine if we said a child murderer could escape prosecution provided he anesthetized the young boy first? Check it, that’s exactly what we said. Unless now we, pro-lifers, also don’t believe life begins at conception? If that’s the case, we’re really no different substantively from our opponents. We just find abortion-on-demand icky.

There’s a difference between being pro-life and anti-abortion. One seeks to eradicate this blight on our supposedly enlightened society. The other merely seeks to regulate it down to “acceptable” levels and practices.

It is a testimony to how much God values life, and the righteous nobleness of our cause, that we pro-lifers have made the strides we have given how confusing our messaging and tactics seem to be. We consistently try to win our argument by granting our opponents’ premise.

Like we often have quality of life arguments (as in when does a child feel pain) and not sanctity of life arguments (as in when is a child a child). The former is the same utilitarian basis for the child-killing industry we’re trying to stop. The latter is the actual humanitarian basis for our mission.

This is one of the reasons why we often tout a bittersweet achievement — the largest annual march on our nation’s capital. Yes, we should note the courage of conviction it takes for thousands upon thousands of activists to make the wintry trek to chilly Washington, D.C. each January. However, does any noble cause really want to celebrate its 44th annual march? Shouldn’t our goal be to not need a 45th annual march, or a 55th annual march, or a 65th annual march?

We say so in our hearts, but not always in our minds as a movement.

Not when we waste precious political capital on just drug the kid first, or read the fine print ahead of time. Or bills that prohibit killing prior to a certain stage of prenatal development, which the likes of Gosnell just ignore anyway because they know states won’t enforce them (and Pennsylvania didn’t in his case). Let’s face it, if your conscience is seared to the point you don’t think twice about murdering innocent humans for a living, simply lying about the particulars of what you’re doing isn’t a bridge too far in the integrity department.

The killing won’t stop until we make it stop. And we won’t make it stop until we actually concoct a strategy with that goal in mind. Just make sure that strategy is in 12-point, Times New Roman font. (For more from the author of “And Then You Can Kill the Baby … Provided You Read the Right Font First” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Big Nanny Republicans? West Virginia Proposes GOP-Backed Soda Tax

/0 Comments/in , /by

There are basically two schools of thought on the purpose of the tax code. One is to raise revenue to fund the essential functions of government, whatever those may be. The other is to use taxes as a carrot and a stick, rewarding behaviors the government finds desirable and punishing those that it doesn’t. America’s founders, the architects of the original tax code, would have found this second function, in which taxes are used for social engineering, unthinkable and against the very nature of the limited-government power structure they proposed. And yet controlling people’s behavior has become an increasingly important function of tax policy, despite its implications for individual freedom and independence.

This is the rationale behind the soda tax. It is asserted that America is undergoing an obesity “epidemic,” an insulting use of the term that falsely analogizes personal lifestyle choice to disease. It is therefore assumed that it is the responsibility of the government to “cure” the disease of people consuming too much sugar and fat.

This used to be an idea that was only proposed by meddling Democrats who think their mission in life is to tell other people what to do. Sadly, that appears to be the case no longer, as a soda tax proposal taking hold in West Virginia is being pushed by Republican lawmakers.

The proposed tax would charge five cents for every 16.9 fluid ounces of soda sold, a tax that would be split between consumers and retailers depending on how strong the demand. Five cents may not sound like much extra to pay, but consider that it represents a 400 percent increase on the rate at which soda is currently taxed. Additionally, two other bills have been introduced in the West Virginia legislature that would increase soda taxes a further one and two cents respectively.

One could argue that these incremental increases in price won’t actually have an effect on consumer choices, but both logic and empirical evidence contradict that claim. At any price, there are presumably some people who are already paying as much as they are willing to pay for soda. Increase that price, even a little bit, and they will substitute a more affordable beverage. It is these marginal consumers who account for the changes in the quantity of goods demanded when prices change. Evidence in cities where soda taxes have been specifically levied has shown us that higher prices do result in less soda sold.

For example, in Philadelphia, where the government imposed a 1.5 cent-per-ounce tax on sodas, distributors reported a drop in sales of between 30 and 50 percent that would potentially force layoffs. If this sales shock seems disproportionate to the amount of tax levied, it’s important to remember that there is a psychological component to consumer behavior as well as a financial one. Where I live, in Washington, D.C., the government levies a five-cent tax on plastic bags used at grocery stores. Almost everyone can afford an extra nickel added to their grocery bill, but many people have changed their behavior anyway, not because of the money, but because they don’t like the idea of being taxed any more than they already are. The same phenomenon is no doubt in effect in Philadelphia and would be evident in West Virginia as well.

There are lots of reasons to oppose a soda tax. Personally, I object to a central authority trying to modify citizen behavior, as if we are rats in a laboratory cage. But for those more pragmatic than I, another objection is the cost to the economy of making consumption — or, to be more accurate, the production that drives consumption — more difficult. Even without changes in consumption, the proposed tax would suck $75 million out of the economy each year, according to the Tax Foundation. Combine that with the layoffs and general decline in economic activity, and you’re looking at some serious harm to West Virginia, a state that already struggles economically.

Finally, there’s the fairness argument. Soda taxes have repeatedly been found to be regressive, meaning that they fall hardest on those Americans with the lowest incomes. “Tax the rich” may be a persuasive populist sentiment, but since when is “tax the poor” an equally good substitute? How about instead, we live within our means and don’t try to use the tax code for social engineering? Republicans in West Virginia need to get back to their roots and remember that conservatism is all about personal autonomy, limited government, and a nation in which individuals are free to choose. (For more from the author of “Big Nanny Republicans? West Virginia Proposes GOP-Backed Soda Tax” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Women’s Rights Activist Slam UN Agency’s Support of China’s Forced Abortions

/0 Comments/in , /by

. . .One of [WRWF Founder and President, Reggie Littlejohn,] recommendations regarding how the UN can help the women and babies of China is by investigating UNFPA’s activities in China, demanding transparency, and in the case of a lack of cooperation, defunding UNFPA. Littlejohn states: “The United States Secretary of State should investigate and evaluate UNFPA’s activities in China, and the President should de-fund them under the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, which ‘prohibits funding for any organization or program that, as determined by the President, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.’”

“UNFPA has been found to be complicit with coercive population control in China in the past, and I have no doubt that any unbiased investigation would find them complicit again. I have long advocated for the defunding of UNFPA. The U.S. cut off funding to UNFPA in 2002 because an investigation, headed by then Secretary of State Colin Powell, found that UNFPA was complicit with the Chinese Family Planning officials in coercive implementation of China’s one-child policy. The Obama administration restored this funding. The UNCSW – as the advocate for women’s rights within the United Nations – should press relentlessly on the UNFPA to be fully transparent and accountable regarding its ‘family planning’ activities in China. I believe that any independent, unbiased investigation into UNFPA’s activities in China will lead to the inescapable conclusion that they are complicit with China’s population control practices, which include forced abortion and involuntary sterilization. To the extent that the global community is funding the UNFPA, the blood of Chinese women and babies is on our hands.” (Read more from “Women’s Rights Activist Slam UN Agency’s Support of China’s Forced Abortions” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Undermining Parents, School Secretly Recruits Children for Gay-Straight Alliance Meetings

/0 Comments/in , /by

“We’re keeping it kind of on the down low because this is North Idaho,” school principal Mary Jensen said. In a recording obtained by Liberty Counsel, she admitted, “Kids who wanted to participate in the club did not necessarily want their parents to know.”

Faculty at Forrest M. Bird Charter School in Sandpoint, Idaho, secretly recruited students to join the school’s Gay-Straight Alliance. They started the group with help from local LGBT activists. Some of the secret meetings weren’t even held at the school.

Legal Violations

Two parents learned about the meetings when their child forgot lunch. The mother took lunch to the school and found her child at the meeting. They objected. Their child, “Student Doe,” has high-functioning autism and gender dysphoria. The school ignored their request.

In response, Liberty Counsel sent the school a letter, listing several ways the school had violated the law. The school refused to back down, so the parents withdrew their child from the school.

“It is outrageous that this school would intentionally undermine parental rights in this manner,” said Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver. “Parents have the fundamental right to know about and direct the activities and associations of their minor children.”

The school had no right to start the club, he said. It was “inappropriate” for school employees to lead and recruit for the GSA in their official roles. He argued that the school violated the state’s Code of Ethics for teachers. The code prohibits “using institutional privileges … for the promotion of political activities.”

The school posted statement on its website claiming it did not violate the law. According to a Liberty Counsel lawyer, the school defiantly asserted in a letter responding to the legal aid group. The school said it “will not comply with [the] demand” for its teachers to be present in a supervisory, rather than activist, capacity.” The school did say it will refrain from recruiting more students. However, it refuses to divulge the names of current student members to their parents. Liberty Counsel and its clients are looking at legal action.

The school believes it is helping kids by teaching them that identifying as transgender has no harmful effects. But according to the National Institutes of Health, as many as 94 percent of students questioning their gender identify with their biological gender by 18.

Liberty Counsel urges parents to contact the school’s board of directors. Parents should demand that the school board respect parental rights. The school staff who violated the Idaho Teacher Code of Ethics should be reprimanded. Parents have a fundamental right to direct the activities of their minor children.

The school’s parent/student handbook requires a permission slip for field trips. Anyone other than a parent who picks up a child must have a note. But the school does not require a note for a child to get LGBT propaganda

Jensen admitted on the recording that the faculty started the club. “The adults … we spent months trying to do this thing.”

Jensen was recorded admitting, “We decided not to do activism at first, because that’s a big step.” She went on, “Once they get the club going, the next step is to start community events —probably next year.” (For more from the author of “Undermining Parents, School Secretly Recruits Children for Gay-Straight Alliance Meetings” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Study: Only 4 Percent of Millennials Hold a ‘Biblical Worldview’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Four percent of millennials hold a biblical worldview, according to a recent study.

The American Culture and Faith Institute (ACFI) published results of a survey earlier this month. The survey measured the core beliefs of millennials compared to older generations.

The study shows that millennials hold more liberal views of things like socialism and same-sex marriage than older generations. But there’s another big difference. Millennials are much less likely to become conservative in the future.

While it’s normal for younger generations to hold liberal views, they drift to the right over time. Not so for millennials.

“Millennials are so far to the left-of-center” that “even a typical amount of repositioning” will leave them very liberal, says George Barna. It’s unlikely that even 10 percent will ever hold a biblical worldview, he says. Barna is the Executive Director of the ACFI and is cited in the study.

Millennials vs. Older Generations: Major Differences

ACFI conducted the study in February 2017. It measured responses from 1,000 millennials, that is, those under age 30.

Notable findings include:

Only 59 percent of millennials identify as Christian. This compares to 72 percent of adults from older generations.

Only 33 percent of millennials (one in three) are born again Christians.

Only twelve percent of millennials identify as conservative. Twenty-six percent are liberal. For adults
older than 30, conservatives outnumber liberals two to one.

Almost have (44 percent) of millennials prefer socialism over capitalism.

As many as 15 percent of millennials identify as LGBT. Only six percent of those over 30 identify as LGBT.

The only question more millennials than older adults held a biblical worldview on? Whether all people are good. Millennials are less likely to believe this than adults over 30. This lines up with the biblical concept of original sin and man’s fallen nature.

Worldview Development: Christians, Get Busy

What exactly is a worldview, anyway? “A comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint.” That’s according to Merriam-Webster.

Dictionary.com defines the the original German word, weltanschauung. “A comprehensive conception or image of the universe and of humanity’s relation to it.”

So how do people develop their worldviews? Barna says that parents are the most powerful influencers of worldview. And most often, a person’s worldview develops between 18 months and 13-years-old.

There will of course be exceptions to this rule. But in general, “the worldview a person possesses at age 13 is … the worldview they will die with.”

What does this mean for future Americans? “Millennials entering their prime childbearing years,” Barna notes. They will likely pass their current worldview to their children. Christians must take action if they want future generations to embrace a biblical worldview.

Christians will need to “step in and impact the spiritual well-being of our future adults,” he says.

Growing Trends

ACFI’s study on millennials’ worldview isn’t the first to reach these conclusions. Recently The Atlantic noted that people are leaving the church in large numbers. The Pew Research Center also noted the trend among millennials. (For more from the author of “Study: Only 4 Percent of Millennials Hold a ‘Biblical Worldview'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

So It’s Come to This: A Feminist Is Calling for Female Slavery

/0 Comments/in , /by

For as long as I’ve been politically aware, the word “feminism” has evoked feelings of divisiveness, nastiness, and misandry. It’s at the extreme end of politically loaded words, producing strong reactions in anyone who hears it. For some, it is a rallying cry of justice and equality; for others, it is hatred made flesh. Why should this be?

My mother, who grew up in the 1960s, feminism’s heyday, remains a self-described feminist and insists that the term means only that women should have the same rights as men. Indeed, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the word thus: “The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.”

What’s so objectionable about that? By this definition, everyone I know is a feminist, myself included. What sort of backward chauvinist would argue that women shouldn’t have the same rights as men?

The answer, apparently, is Sarrah Le Marquand, an Australian feminist and the editor-in-chief of “Stellar” magazine. In a piece penned for Sydney’s “Daily Telegraph,” Le Marquand argues that female parents of school-aged children should be legally required to enter the workforce and get a job.

That’s right: a philosophy that once demanded more rights for women now demands more restrictions. Men are free to work or to choose to stay home with their children. Women should be denied that choice, for the good of womankind. The ultimate goal of feminism is for women to have no choices except for those permitted them by society’s elites.

Le Marquand has a snappy retort to these objections. She parries accusations that she is against female choice by… openly admitting that she doesn’t care about female choice. Clever. She writes:

“Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that ‘feminism is about choice’ is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history.”

This position is so staggeringly self-contradictory and antithetical to the stated aims of traditional feminism that it practically leaves one at a loss for words. Fortunately, we already have a word for legally compelling someone to work against her will. At the risk of triggering you, here it is: Slavery. One cannot help but be reminded of George Orwell’s chilling slogan of totalitarianism: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why feminism has become so toxic a term in modern discourse. This is why it’s hard to take feminism seriously at all, along with those intellectual women who gather in seminars to giggle about whether men, as a gender, are obsolete, in decline, and just plain unnecessary.

To the extent that there remains a philosophy that stresses equal rights as one of its primary tenets, that is blind to gender, as well as to color or creed, and that does not gin up its followers by engaging in identity politics, it has a different, perhaps less familiar name: libertarianism.

To the libertarian, women as well as men should be free to live and prosper as they choose, without interference from aggressors of either gender. The law should give no preference to one group of people over another, for we were all born with the same rights, rights inherent to our humanity. To the libertarian, you should be able to live the life you choose. And we would never dream of making you work rather than take care of your kids. (For more from the author of “So It’s Come to This: A Feminist Is Calling for Female Slavery” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Arizona Passes Law Requiring Abortionists to Save Babies Born Alive During Botched Abortions

/0 Comments/in , /by

It could hardly come at a better time.

On Wednesday, the Arizona state legislature passed a law requiring late-term abortionists to try to save the lives of babies born alive during botched abortions. The same day, a late-term abortionist from Arizona got caught implying that she committed infanticide.

“You have to pay attention to who’s in the room” if a baby is born alive, Dr. DeShawn Taylor told investigators with the Center for Medical Progress. “Because the law states you are not supposed to do any maneuvers after the fact to try to cause fetal demise.”

“Arizona is so conservative,” the former medical director for Planned Parenthood Arizona said. She implies that she commits infanticide against babies born alive. Even as late as 24 weeks.

“Why does it matter who’s in the room if you’re following the law?” asked State Rep. Maria Syms.

She joined the majority that passed the “Delivered Alive Infant Clarification Act” (S.B. 1367) through both chambers on Wednesday. (34-22 and 18-11, respectively.)

But first this commonsense measure had to face down a scorched-earth PR campaign. It presented abortion as “compassionate” and treated medical treatment to newborns as “torture.”

Saving Lives, Not Violating Decision

Sen. Steve Smith sponsored the bill. It requires that anyone who performs abortions from 20 weeks “promote, preserve and maintain the life” of children born alive. Signs of life include “breathing, a heartbeat, umbilical cord pulsation [or] definite movement of voluntary muscles.” The legislation exempts severely handicapped babies certified to survive three months or less.

Abortion facilities must have lifesaving equipment on hand. Abortionists must have an emergency treatment plan. Those who do not comply can get fined or lose their medical license.

Democratic Rep. Ken Clark said trying to save infants’ lives is a “horrendous process.” He said that “it deprives the family and the doctors of the ability to decide.”

But at that point, it is no longer an abortion. It’s a birth. And anything that “continues” the abortion process is murder by anyone’s definition.

“It’s striking how Dr. Taylor describes the law as prohibiting her from finishing the abortion once the baby is outside the womb,” said Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod. “This is precisely why we need S.B. 1367.”

More Babies Surviving at 22 Weeks

The most infamous case of a “post-birth abortionist” is Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell snipped babies’ spines with scissors in his West Philadelphia abortion facility. He was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree murder and is serving life in prison without parole.

Abortion supporters called the bill — which would cut into abortionists’ bottom line — unnecessary. “Fetuses born at 20 and 21 weeks gestation have a zero percent chance of survival.” So testified Neonatologist Peter Stevenson.

But a study in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that nearly one-in-four babies born at 22 weeks could survive with treatment. That prompted University of Iowa pediatrics professor Dr. Edward Bell to tell the New York Times that 22 weeks is a new standard of viability.

Democrats’ Inconsistency

The abortion lobby tried to present medical care as sadistic. Stevenson said that since the babies were unlikely to survive, caring for them prolonged their suffering. He called that “unethical.” Arizona State University professor Dr. Kristy King called the measure “ghastly.” The feminist activist also called it a “fetus torture bill.” Planned Parenthood derided it as “cruel legislation that attempts to stigmatize [and] shame.”

But Planned Parenthood also opposed Arizona’s “Mother’s Health and Safety Act,” signed by then-Governor Jan Brewer in 2012. It prohibited all abortions after 20 weeks on the basis that those unborn babies can feel pain. (It was later struck down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.)

So, which is it? How can trying to save babies at 20 weeks inflict unspeakable pain if dismemberment abortion is a painless procedure?

The only thing Democratic lawmakers consistently maintained was a positive view of abortion. For instance, Rep. John Allen told the chamber about his daughter, who survived being born with only one hemisphere of her brain. Democrat Lela Alston countered by saying that aborting her handicapped daughter was an act of “great compassion and love.”

Some of them wore pink on the floor to support Planned Parenthood.

Will Gov. Ducey Sign the Bill to Save Babies?

Republicans maintained the hope that one day science will learn to save children at ever-younger ages. “Someone had to be the first to be born at 30 weeks,” said State Rep. Eddie Farnsworth. Over time doctors perfected the technology to preserve life at that stage. “There will be a child at 20 weeks who is viable.”

Babies as premature as 21 weeks have survived.

Jewels Green, a former abortion facility worker who is now pro-life, said a relative was one of the early ones to beat the odds.

“My cousin weighed about two pounds when he was born at six months’ gestation — in 1971!” Green told me. “He is now a strong man.” The military veteran is “proud to have served in Iraq.”

“If doctors could save such tiny babies in 1971, think what we can do now,” she said. (For more from the author of “Arizona Passes Law Requiring Abortionists to Save Babies Born Alive During Botched Abortions” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.