Let’s Be Honest: Disney Has Been Sexualizing Characters for a Long Time

/0 Comments/in , /by

Ever since Beauty and the Beast director Bill Condon told Attitude magazine that the highly-anticipated Disney remake would feature an “exclusively gay moment,” Christian pundits and parents have been up in arms. Pastor Franklin Graham called for Christians to “watch out!” and “say no to Disney.” LifeSiteNews is sponsoring a petition to tell Disney “that children’s entertainment is no place to promote a harmful sexual political agenda.” This Red State columnist wonders why Disney can’t just keep its “hands off” children’s entertainment. Many people are rallying their Twitter followers to #BoycottDisney.

The list goes on.

For Christians who believe the homosexual lifestyle is something to be delivered from and not celebrated, it is disappointing to see the push for homosexual acceptance reaching into the realm of children’s entertainment. But let’s be honest with ourselves. Disney has long been in the business of sexualizing its movies and characters. They just now expanded their sexualization to include a gay character.

Disney and the Sexualized Princess

Let’s take a quick walk down memory lane.

For years, Disney’s female characters (and especially Disney princesses) were hyper-sexualized (tiny waists, big busts, heavy make-up), from their animation to their look-alike toy products. Disney’s original princess movies also centered nearly exclusively around romance and marriage, even though all of the princesses are only in their teens. Perhaps parents should think about the message it sends their little girls that when they are 16, a man they don’t know will save them with a kiss on the lips (Sleeping Beauty), or that it’s okay to run off with a prince on a magic carpet when they are only 15 (Aladdin), or that they should be the “fairest of them all” when they are only 14 (Snow White). (Speaking of Beauty and the Beast, Belle is only 17.)

To be clear, I don’t think Disney princesses are inherently evil, but I do think that parents should be wary of the message their daughters are receiving when they constantly watch portrayals of teen girls who are hyper-sexualized and focused on Prince Charming.

That’s not to say that many parents haven’t been wary. Many have been complaining about these traditional Disney princess traits for years, with feminists and liberals often leading the way.

A New Kind of Princess

Disney eventually got the message, creating some new Disney princesses that weren’t focused solely on romance, like Merida in Brave and Elsa in Frozen. These movies were a huge breath of fresh air for girls like me, who preferred dressing up as Frodo and conquering Mount Doom to dressing up as Cinderella and going to the ball.

When I saw Brave in 2012 and Frozen in 2013, I can’t tell you how much I wished I’d had those movies — focused on adventure and familial love instead of romance — as a little girl.

Merida would have been my hero with her horse, her weapons and her independent spirit. Even though Frozen contains a romantic subplot, it’s much more realistic; Anna’s infatuation with a prince she just met proves to be unwise and misguided, unlike other Disney movies where young couples jump directly from meeting into happily ever after. In the end Anna falls for a faithful male friend in a sweet, not-in-your-face sort of way.

Bringing Back Romance — With a Twist

LGBTQ pride is currently at the forefront of secular culture. Disney is a secular company. So of course they’re starting to featuring gay characters. This really shouldn’t surprise us.

What should be more concerning is that Disney is willing (or so it seems, from recent events) to swing the spotlight back on romance just so they can celebrate homosexuality on screen. For instance, many liberals have asked Disney to #GiveElsaAGirlfriend in the upcoming sequel, since some thought Elsa’s story in Frozen represented coming out of the closet (I didn’t see it this way, but whatever).

Aside from the fact that putting little girls’ favorite princess in a lesbian relationship would be troubling to Christian parents, what bothers me about #GiveElsaAGirlfriend is that people want to insert main-plot romance into a movie franchise that was perfectly fine without it! Why not make Frozen 2 about Elsa’s adventures as the independent ruler of her kingdom, or another story on the virtues of sibling love and working together? Why make her fall in love at all?

As for Beauty and the Beast, it’s already a romance, and a rather complicated one. There is no need to add another layer, except to have, as the director said, a Disney movie’s first “exclusively gay moment.”

A Better Boycott

Boycotting or petitioning Disney over the presence of gay characters will be largely ineffective. The only way to really change culture is by fulfilling the Great Commission and introducing sinners to Jesus, which must be a neighbor-out, not corporation-down initiative. Franklin Graham suggested that Walt Disney “would be shocked at what has happened to the company that he started.” But Disney has hardly been a paragon of Christian morality in the past, from their hyper-sexualized teenage cartoons to the child actors they’ve graduated into rehab. Collective actions can sometimes make a difference (as it may have with Target) but in general we can’t use boycotts to browbeat secular entities into following our Christian code of conduct when they lack the very foundation for that conduct.

So like it or not, it’s probably best to get used to more gay Disney characters in the near future. I suspect that some (if not much) of the homosexuality portrayed in upcoming Disney films may go over little children’s heads anyway, just like the numerous sexual innuendos placed in Disney films throughout the years (some have supposedly been debunked).

That said, I think there is a better boycott or petition that Christian and non-Christian parents alike can join in when it comes to Disney films. Why not ask Disney to focus less on romance and more on innocent adventures that kids will enjoy? Love, romance and sexuality are delicate subjects that parents themselves should be responsible for broaching with their kids at the right time.

Entertainment shouldn’t be feeding young kids the message that love, sex and romance are what defines them, whether that message comes from a hyper-sexualized 16-year-old princess or a gay man exploring his attractions. (For more from the author of “Let’s Be Honest: Disney Has Been Sexualizing Characters for a Long Time” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Gay ‘Marriage’ Has Not Cured Gay Loneliness

/0 Comments/in , /by

In 2014, a gay activist in England addressed the disproportionately high rate of drug abuse in LGB circles, asking, “Why is drug use higher in the gay community?” His answer: There are negative aspects to the LGB lifestyle that contribute to it. Now, in 2017, a gay writer has addressed “The Epidemic of Gay Loneliness,” asking why gay “marriage” has not cured gay loneliness (among other problems in the gay community), especially among gay men. His answer: “minority stress.”

Strikingly, the 2014 article in the UK’s Pink News did not mention “homophobia” once, while the 2017 article in the Huffington Post, amounting to nearly 7,000 words (and worth reading in full), mentioned it only twice. In other words, neither writer blamed these gay-related behavioral problems or social issues on “homophobia.” Rather, the fault lay with certain realities within the LGB community itself — to which my biblically-grounded, conservative friends would say, “But of course!”

Michael Hobbes and the “Epidemic of Gay Loneliness”

Michael Hobbes, the author of the article on “The Epidemic of Gay Loneliness,” writes with complete candor, noting that, “I’m not going to pretend to be objective about any of this. I’m a perpetually single gay guy who was raised in a bright blue city by PFLAG parents. I’ve never known anyone who died of AIDS, I’ve never experienced direct discrimination and I came out of the closet into a world where marriage, a picket fence and a golden retriever were not just feasible, but expected. I’ve also been in and out of therapy more times than I’ve downloaded and deleted Grindr.”

But his experience, he claims, is hardly unique, noting that, “For years I’ve noticed the divergence between my straight friends and my gay friends. While one half of my social circle has disappeared into relationships, kids and suburbs, the other has struggled through isolation and anxiety, hard drugs and risky sex.” And this has continued, Hobbes observed, even though “the gay community has made more progress on legal and social acceptance than any other demographic group in history.”

Yet, he laments, “even as we celebrate the scale and speed of this change, the rates of depression, loneliness and substance abuse in the gay community remain stuck in the same place they’ve been for decades. Gay people are now, depending on the study, between 2 and 10 times more likely than straight people to take their own lives. We’re twice as likely to have a major depressive episode. And just like the last epidemic we lived through, the trauma appears to be concentrated among men. In a survey of gay men who recently arrived in New York City, three-quarters suffered from anxiety or depression, abused drugs or alcohol or were having risky sex — or some combination of the three.”

Can this be blamed primarily on “homophobia”? Hardly.

Hobbes cites Christopher Stults, “a researcher at New York University who studies the differences in mental health between gay and straight men.” Stults stated that, “Marriage equality and the changes in legal status were an improvement for some gay men. But for a lot of other people, it was a letdown. Like, we have this legal status, and yet there’s still something unfulfilled.”

Relationships Intrinsically Unfulfilling

Could it be that, generally speaking, there’s something intrinsically unfulfilling about homosexual relationships? Could it be that, by divine intent, ultimate relational fulfillment for human beings can be found only in heterosexual marriage?

I’m sure many gay readers will say to me, “Obviously, you don’t know me or the relationship I have with my spouse. How dare you make such a generalization!”

But I’m merely asking questions based on: 1) the data being presented here; 2) biblical reasoning; and 3) testimonies from ex-gays, who have spoken to me about the qualitative differences between their old, homosexual relationships and their current heterosexual marriage.

Interestingly enough (and sadly enough), Hobbes explains that, “This feeling of emptiness, it turns out, is not just an American phenomenon. In the Netherlands, where gay marriage has been legal since 2001, gay men remain three times more likely to suffer from a mood disorder than straight men, and 10 times more likely to engage in ‘suicidal self-harm.’ In Sweden, which has had civil unions since 1995 and full marriage since 2009, men married to men have triple the suicide rate of men married to women.”

Of course, Christian conservatives (and others of like moral values) have pointed to such studies for years, arguing that it is homosexuality itself which is problematic, simply because God didn’t design men to be with men or women with women — and that holds true biologically as well as socially and emotionally. Why should this surprise us?

This is not to deny, however, that there are well-adjusted gay couples and poorly-adjusted straight couples, nor is it to deny that there are gay couples who are deeply in love and straight couples who commit serial adultery, nor is it to deny that many LGB’s have suffered painful rejection by family and friends, contributing to their depression and substance abuse. And certainly, I do not write any of this in a gloating way, since as a follower of Jesus, my goal is not to say, “You see! I told you so,” but rather, “There really is a better way!”

Looking back to the mid-20th-century, Hobbes notes that initially, researchers in the ’50’s and ’60’s attributed the mental and emotional problems experienced by a large percentage of gay men to “homosexuality itself, just one of many manifestations of what was, at the time, known as ‘sexual inversion.’” But, he continues, “As the gay rights movement gained steam … homosexuality disappeared from the DSM and the explanation shifted to trauma.”

In short, gay suicides and gay depression and other emotional (and physical and social) problems were believed to be the fault of a homophobic society. But as Canadian researcher Travis Salway reviewed the data, he realized that, “The problem wasn’t just suicide, it wasn’t just afflicting teenagers and it wasn’t just happening in areas stained by homophobia. He found that gay men everywhere, at every age, have higher rates of cardiovascular disease, cancer, incontinence, erectile dysfunction,⁠ allergies and asthma—you name it, we got it. In Canada, Salway eventually discovered, more gay men were dying from suicide than from AIDS, and had been for years.”

Indeed, says Alex Keuroghlian, a psychiatrist at the Fenway Institute’s Center for Population Research in LGBT Health, “We see gay men who have never been sexually or physically assaulted with similar post-traumatic stress symptoms to people who have been in combat situations or who have been raped.”

“Minority Stress” and the Better Way

These researchers describe this phenomenon as “minority stress.” As Hobbes explains, “In its most direct form, it’s pretty simple: Being a member of a marginalized group requires extra effort.”

Hobbes points to clinical trials where gay men who are taught how to deal with “minority stress” are showing improvement in many categories, yet I’m not going out on a limb when I say: Don’t expect to see dramatic, large-scale, positive change in LGB circles in the days to come (I’m speaking in terms of relationship satisfaction, substance abuse, and physical and emotional problems.)

Gay sex will always have more health risks than straight sex (speaking in general terms, since there is obviously overlap in some of the practices and habits), gay couples will never have as many children as straight couples (which has many other social implications), and two men or two women cannot possibly experience the fullness found in a healthy male-female relationship. It simply the way God made us, and it makes perfect sense.

And why is it that there are other sub-groups in our society that would seemingly experience high levels of minority stress due to their numbers, their isolation, and their social status, and yet experience few of the emotional or physical traumas experienced in the LGB community?

Hobbes closes his article with these words: “I keep thinking of something Paul, the software developer, told me: ‘For gay people, we’ve always told ourselves that when the AIDS epidemic was over we’d be fine. Then it was, when we can get married we’ll be fine. Now it’s, when the bullying stops we’ll be fine. We keep waiting for the moment when we feel like we’re not different from other people. But the fact is, we are different. It’s about time we accept that and work with it.’”

With compassion for Paul and for Hobbes and for every LGB person reading this article, I say again: God does have a better way, and your ultimate help will not come from the society around you (or even from within yourself) but rather from above (from the heavenly Father) and then, with the Lord’s help, in your own life, from the inside out. (For more form the author of “Why Gay ‘Marriage’ Has Not Cured Gay Loneliness” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Gangland Tactics Obama Learned From Saul Alinksy Corrupted Our Government

/0 Comments/in , , /by

An old saying goes that a typical idealistic movement “starts out as a crusade, turn into a business, then degenerates into a racket.” In the case of the modern Left, that’s far too generous. It’s clear that the most successful technique in the Left’s playbook, “community organizing,” started out as a racket. In fact, its inventor, Saul Alinsky, developed it based on the “protection rackets” practiced by the organized crime syndicates whose leaders he befriended in the 1940s. Check out the chilling documentary A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing to learn more about Alinsky.

He is the modern Machiavelli who figured out how to exploit the ethnic and social divides inside a community, manufacture outrage, and bully large institutions into funding the very groups that attacked them.

Of course, it was in an Alinsky training school that Barack Obama got his start in politics. And now we learn from news reports that the shakedown methods of community organizing were applied by Obama’s White House, on a massive scale that corrupted our judicial system. As we reported here at The Stream a few days ago:

Department of Justice officials diverted millions of dollars slated for victims of the 2008 housing meltdown to politically favored third parties, including “left-wing radical groups,” according to the chairman of a House of Representatives oversight subcommittee….

Rep. Sean Duffy, a Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the House Financial Services oversight and investigations subcommittee, said Friday the officials “skimmed” off three percent from mortgage-related bank settlements. This created what he called a $500 million “slush fund” that could be steered toward favored groups….

Among the political activist groups favored favored by the settlements is La Raza, the nation’s largest Hispanic activist organization that routinely supports Democratic candidates and causes. Cecilia Munoz, a La Raza senior vice president, was appointed by Obama in 2012 to head the White House Domestic Policy Council….

The Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA) is also slated to receive $50,000 from the Bank of America settlement, according to Cause of Action…. A February 2016 independent monitor report about a Bank of America settlement, obtained by TheDCNF, showed that $125 million had been “donated” by the bank in 2014 to 147 “community” groups and “housing counseling agencies.”

Leftist Groups That Helped Cause Housing Crisis Profit from Payouts

La Raza (“The Race”) and MEChA are radical Mexican nationalist organizations, which have long been accused of being the Latino equivalent of white supremacists. As Mark Kirkorian of National Review has pointed out, La Raza took its very name from the writings of a Mexican radical who claimed that the blend of Spanish and Indian blood that took place in Mexico had produced a superior race.

The Obama administration arranged that instead of paying out money to homeowners whom they had harmed, or to taxpayers who bailed out investors, banks accused of wrongdoing would sluice money into the coffers of leftist activists like La Raza, which oppose the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.

The irony becomes even richer when you remember that part of the reason for the 2008 crisis was that banks had lowered their standards for giving out mortgages, under pressure from leftist groups like La Raza to offer more home loans to members of minority groups regardless of their credit scores. So leftists help to gin up a national economic crisis, then profit from the collapse. Nice work if you can get it.

Sending Taxpayer Money to George Soros

Obama’s Alinskyite methods have gone global. As The Stream reported, in the small post-Communist Republic of Macedonia, Obama’s diplomatic appointees have been funneling U.S. tax-funded foreign aid through the aggressively leftist, pro-abortion Open Society Foundation created by international banker George Soros:

The Obama-appointed U.S. ambassador in Skopje, Jess Baily, has come under congressional scrutiny over accusations that he has shown a political bias against the Macedonian conservative party, VMRO, and that he facilitated coalition negotiations between the main leftist party and ethnic Albanian parties.

In a letter sent to Baily on Jan. 17, Republican members of the House and the Senate also asked him to explain reports that his embassy had selected Soros’ Open Society Foundations as the main implementer of U.S. Agency for International Development projects in Macedonia….

Feb. 27 USAID announcement of a $2.54 million contract with the foundation revealed that the project included paying for training in “civic activism,” “mobilization,” and “civic engagement.”

Far from strengthening the rule of law or regional security, these are activities associated with the redefinition of civics as 1960s-style progressive political activism. They are all strategies straight out of Saul Alinsky’s subversion manual, Rules for Radicals, whose translation into Macedonian, incidentally, was funded by Soros’ foundation in 2014.

One of the world’s richest men, Soros has a long history of intervening politically around the globe in the pursuit of his dream of open borders, global governance, and the erosion of regional particularism — what he calls the “open society.”

Barack Obama may not have personally engaged in the kind of shameless pay-for-play that seem to have characterized the Clinton Foundation, as it monetized access to the U.S. State Department. But he did aggressively corrupt the use of public money taken from taxpayers or owed to them, in service of overtly partisan goals.

Donald Trump has promised to “drain the swamp.” Let’s hope he starts by investigating the Chicago gangland methods Obama learned from Alinsky and brought to the highest reaches of government. Given his years in the building trade, Trump has doubtless seen more than his share of this kind of corruption. Who better to root it out? (For more from the author of “How Gangland Tactics Obama Learned From Saul Alinksy Corrupted Our Government” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Godly Strategy in Response to Disney’s ‘Gay Moment’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Wow. Disney’s “gay moment” in the film Beauty and the Beast sure has stirred up feelings among Christians. Calls for boycotts. Closed doors. Angry urgings to quit being “nice.”

That last came from comments on my Stream article last week, The Beastly Beauty of Disney’s ‘Gay Moment’ — And How We Should Respond. Apparently some readers thought I was suggesting we back out of the conflict. I’m not. I’m talking about our strategy as followers of Christ.

Another comment on that article asked for more specific thoughts on what to do at a time like this. Jesus told His disciples to “be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” (Matt. 10:16) Our forays into pro-gay culture must likewise be marked with both strategic savvy and godly action.

So I’m going to make some observations here on what gay activists want, what God wants, and the strategic lay of the land. Based on that, I’m going to suggest several conclusions.

1. What Gay Activists Want

What do gay activists want from us? That’s easy. The most useful thing we can do for them is play into their picture of hateful Christian conservatism. They’re painting us as intolerant haters, because that image helps them win. I can’t prove it, but I suspect it serves their purposes even more than if we were to lay down our arms and slink quietly away.

2. What God Wants

Not surprisingly, God wants exactly the opposite of what gay activists want. He wants us to:

Stand firm. He doesn’t want us to slink quietly away. Over and over again, Christians have changed history by standing for righteousness in culture.

Fight God’s way. The “weapons of our warfare are not worldly,” but have power over strongholds, arguments and every proud obstacle. (2 Cor. 10:3-5)

Be quick to speak, slow to anger. The anger of man does not accomplish the righteousness of God. (James 1:20)

Be human. Sean McDowell wisely urges us to avoid an us-versus-them mentality. We’re all created in God’s image, so we dare not treat others inhumanely; we dare not dehumanize them.

Be persuasive. Christianity is a religion of persuasion through love, and through preaching, teaching and explanation. Some misguided believers have tried to advance the faith through power; they have gained only corrupted ground. True Christianity has covered the globe through persuasively speaking the truth in love. (Acts 17:1-3, Eph. 4:15)

Be relational. God is a God of relationship from even before creation: the three Persons of the Trinity have always related to in perfect love. He created us to love Him, our neighbor and even our enemies.

3. The Lay of the Land

To be wise in battle requires knowing the terrain. We have to recognize that the pro-gay forces control most of the persuasive power centers in our culture. They’ve got Disney Studios and so much more: education, music, the major news media … I could go on, but you already know it. They own the heavy artillery.

What do we have on our side? We have the Church and we have prayer.

From a strictly social/cultural perspective the Church is huge: it’s the ground organization to beat all ground organizations. Obviously it’s hugely under-equipped and under-deployed, but more on that in a moment.

Meanwhile prayer is the spiritual analogue to “air power” in relation to the ground game we’re all engaged in. Prayer flies even higher than our opponents’ artillery.

How Not To Fight

So yes, we fight, but not by the world’s methods, and not without being wise to the strategic realities. Here’s what won’t work.

We’re not going to win this in the media. We don’t control enough of it. We can win some persuasive battles here and there; certainly enough to be worthwhile — let’s do all we can! — but realistically, not enough to turn the tide. (The more crucial role played by The Stream and similar media is to equip and encourage our own.)

The same goes in spades for “not being nice.” Even if being not-nice were a godly idea — which it isn’t — we’re outgunned anyway. The other side is (thank God!) way better at it than we are. For us it’s a failed, hopeless and wrong tactic.

Persuasion, Action, Deeds and Prayer

Instead we must stand for truth by persuasive speech, righteous action, loving deeds and prayer.

Persuasion means knowing the reasons for our position. Do you know where to find the five key Bible passages on homosexuality? Can you state several reasons man-woman marriage is healthier for society than gay marriage? Have you listened to opponents’ objections thoughtfully, and are you prepared with answers?

I almost hate to introduce this word into polite conversation, but getting ready for this battle means doing some homework.

Righteous action could certainly include boycotting a film like Beauty and the Beast. It also includes speaking up. It also includes loving our enemies.

Loving deeds are the real challenge, because it’s impossible to love from arm’s length. Gays and gay-affirming people can continue to believe Christians are haters only as long as we let them. We can’t argue them out of it; the way to stop them thinking it is by loving them. We certainly don’t need to agree with their views, but if they’ll let us, we can be friends anyway. Not all of them will welcome our friendship, but many are actually hoping for it.

This is the ground game we are uniquely positioned to engage in; for which our huge, under-deployed ground organization, the Church, must become equipped, and in which each believer must become active.

Finally, Prayer. We have the privilege and the obligation to pray for ourselves. We must pray fervently for the Church. We must pray for Disney and all others who may be arrayed against God’s truth.

The battle is the Lord’s. He isn’t on our side (don’t ever be mistaken about that!) but we can be on His, if we fight for His goals in His way. (For more from the author of “Godly Strategy in Response to Disney’s ‘Gay Moment'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

When Is It Time to Revolt? The 50 States vs. The Gigantic Vampiric Bureaucracy Known as the Federal Government

/0 Comments/in , , /by

People who can wake up care.

There are 50 countries in the US. They’re called states.

All right, that’s an exaggeration. They are states. But they could be countries.

If you don’t think so, consider the 2015 state budget of tiny Rhode Island: $8.9 billion. The 2016 budget for the nation of Somalia was $216 million.

The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States [government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The 11th Amendment reads: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”

If you combine these two Amendments, you begin to see the considerable powers granted to the states.

Of course, now, relatively few people care about these powers. They should, but they don’t.

The Civil War over the issue of slavery convinced a majority of Americans that states’ power was a bad thing—and it had to be remedied when high moral principles and intolerable suffering were at stake.

This premise was, however, expanded to include almost any issue on which the federal government wanted to assert its supremacy.

Which is where we are now.

And the Congress has been more than happy to cement that assertion of overweening federal power, by passing budgets that hand over huge sums of money to the states—otherwise known as bribes for giving in and surrendering.

The states lost that war without a shot being fired.

There is another way so-called “Progressives” look at illegitimate and unconstitutional federal power: it is the wonderful solution to problems the states refuse to solve for themselves.

If a state or states can’t see the wisdom of regulating an industry that pollutes, the federal government must step in and take control. When it does, the control is hailed as a victory.

But is it? The solution, in the long run, can be worse than the problem. As time passes, the federal government exerts more and more power over the states—any one of which could rightfully claim it has the size and money to rank as a country.

America, more and more, becomes a single entity, ruled from above, at a great distance, by a gigantic vampiric bureaucracy. This is exactly the kind of centralization the Republic’s Founders tried to avoid.

Conventional wisdom asserts that the states will do great harm to their citizens, because the states are locally inept, corrupt, ignorant, and cruel, whereas the federal government is kinder, gentler, more humane, and wise. The states are more likely to be run by greedy businessmen, while the federal government can maintain greater distance and rule with equanimity and fairness.

This is largely propaganda, and now, in 2017, it is difficult to run tests of the conventional wisdom, because the federal government has taken such major blocks of states’ former powers into its own hands.

But here is an example of such a test: the US Department of Education, a federal agency. It employs a mere 4400 people, and it has a staggering annual budget of $68 billion.

What in the world are those 4400 people doing with that much tax money and money printed out of thin air?

Here is the defining statement from the Department’s website:

ED’s 4,400 employees and $68 billion budget are dedicated to: “Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds [throwing giant sums of money at the states while binding the states to all sorts of rules and conditions and guidelines and bribes.].”

“Collecting data on America’s schools and disseminating research [surveillance, data mining, profiling, invasive pseudoscientific psychological screening].”

“Focusing national attention on key educational issues [propaganda, indoctrination, useless public relations, b.s.].”

“Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education [preempting the states’ ability to handle those issues themselves].”

The individual states could run and fund their own schools. Of course, they wouldn’t have the $68 billion each year to work with, but that would be their problem to solve.

The fact that it isn’t their problem now speaks to the federal policy of piling up insupportable budget debt to the sky and then pretending it doesn’t exist. “Here’s 68 billion dollars. No problem. We’ll print more when we need it.”

So the test would be: eliminate the US Department of Education.

Turn back the full responsibility for education to the states.

Perhaps then, the states would realize how insane their own governments are, because those governments, too, are running on the fumes of unpayable debt.

A rude awakening for all concerned, at every level? Most certainly. But the degree of overarching federal power would shrink a bit.

And in the long run, that is a good thing. An important thing.

And the next step would be individual communities within the states taking back control of their own schools. And many more parents homeschooling their own children.

The whole operation is called Decentralization.

And it starts at the top, where the biggest power grab of all occurred. Where the Constitution was stepped on, twisted, co-opted, ensnared, burned, scrapped, defamed, ignored, and ridiculed.

Think about this. How many schools in America, all of which receive gobs of federal money, actually teach the Constitution in a serious way, article by article, amendment by amendment, day by day, through all grades, with increasing depth and sophistication?

None.

As in: NONE.

Why should the schools teach the Constitution? After all, they’re sucking in money from a federal government that opposes the document and its essential separation of powers.

Coda: There are people who think what I’m proposing is beyond the pale. For example, what about the great civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s? It resulted in the passage of federal legislation that changed the landscape of America and canceled racism in many resistant states.

Yes, and it also resulted in Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, which was launched in 1966, and continues in one form or another to this day. Trillions of dollars have been poured into inner cities, and the conditions in those areas are far worse than in 1966.

How can that be? It can be, because along with the money came Dependence on the federal government. Lifelong dependence. Which was the actual motive behind the whole operation. It was no favor to the poor. It was a war on the poor. Honest programs aimed at developing self-sufficient businesses were cast aside and purposely rejected. Why? Because they could have worked. Because they would have lifted people up.

But instead, we now have equality. Equality of dependence. That was the federal ruse. That was the op.

What looks like federal intervention on behalf of the high moral ground turns into a long-term enduring disaster.

The solution to the problem turns out to be worse than the problem.

Why should we care about fake morality, devised to appear like a gift from the gods?

We should care about the self-sufficiency, power, imagination, and visions of many individuals. We should support the work that springs from those wells of deep energy.

The Constitution, in its own way, was an attempt to establish a platform from which those qualities could emerge.

It limited the force that could be applied from the highest controls of government.

Perverse criminals at every level rise and fall. But the Founding ideas and ideals remain. And so do the individuals who grasp them and live in freedom. (For more from the author of “When Is It Time to Revolt? The 50 States vs. The Gigantic Vampiric Bureaucracy Known as the Federal Government” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Most Loved and Hated Person — Jesus

/0 Comments/in , /by

A few days ago Sen. Bill Cassidy called a town hall meeting in Metairie, Louisiana, for his constituents to discuss immigration, healthcare and the economy. When state chaplain Dr. Michael Sprague stood to pray, protesters yelled and overpowered his prayer with shouts of “Separation of church and state!” When Dr. Sprague concluded his prayer, “In Jesus’ Name,” the protesters became loud and unruly again.

When I see things happening like this, these words come to mind: The most loved person who ever lived: Jesus. The most hated person who ever lived: Jesus.

If ever a nation needed God’s direction and help, it is us, and it is now. America doesn’t just have economic problems; we have serious spiritual and moral problems. The spiritual disease in our land can only be healed by Almighty God, the love of God, His mercy and the transforming power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When the enemy comes in like a flood, it is the result of leaving God out of American life and culture.

To Stand Boldly and Shine the Light

If you boldly stand for God, you will be misunderstood by some and misrepresented by many. To be honest, it is difficult not to be disheartened by this fact. Only God can enable us to have peace and joy when we are misunderstood, misrepresented or accused. Those who love Him with all their heart will often catch the full wrath of hatred. Jesus said, “If they hated Me, they will hate you.”

Faithfully following our Lord is too difficult to accomplish through our own strength. This is why He sent the Holy Spirit to indwell us and enable us to fulfill His kingdom purpose. The Holy Spirit not only allows us to endure the slings and arrows, but allows the opportunity for God’s love to transform even the hardest hearts. We saw it with Saul of Tarsus. I’ve seen it countless times, as I share in my new book Living Amazed. We may well see it with those now shouting down the name of Jesus in Metairie.

Christians must come out from under cover and confront the darkness and deception prevailing in our day by revealing the light. Those who know God must take a stand against evil and unprincipled practices that are being promoted as appropriate. When they do, the church and nation will clearly see the illuminating light of truth and find their way out of darkness.

When believers resist present trends and begin to make a positive impact on our culture and national direction, they will be accused of trying to establish a Judeo-Christian theocracy — something the true church and people of faith, including Protestants, Catholics and Jews, would not tolerate.

However, we already have a secular, progressive theocracy that boldly defends relativism and amoral views while forcing their ungodly, anti-Christ worldview on everyone else. Have you noticed that the bigger government gets, the smaller the citizen becomes? If you oppose this secular theocracy, you will be accused of being an uneducated fool, an idiot, a hate monger, a racist or even a terrorist.

To Sit at the Table

Serious political problems must frequently be hammered out on the anvil of heated debates and dialogue. Town hall meetings being a fruitful part of the process. Often both sides must move to find common ground for positive progress.

Our leaders — and citizens — must come to the table of reason and the wisdom that only comes from God must always have a seat at the table. Prayer is so important during these times. It is wise not to add fuel to the fire, intensifying divisiveness with unkind insults which can come so easily. As Christians, while we stand firmly and boldly for truth, we must remember that, “The god of this world has blinded the eyes of the unbelieving.”

God help us recognize how difficult it can be for a blind person to find the way. They need help and God wants us to help open blind eyes and provide wise guidance by consistently sharing “the truth in love.”

Let’s do it while keeping in mind that perfect love walked on earth only once and religious people, along with the government, hung Him on a cross. But praise God, He arose, conquered death and is alive to be revealed through His church in resurrection power, offering life and hope through our witness.

Hold on to the truth God spoke in the Old Testament: “Those who honor Me, I will honor.” And the Lord who is our Shepherd said, “I will prepare a table before you in the presence of your enemies.” If we follow Him, we need “fear no evil for He is with us.” And “the gates of hell will not prevail” against those who hear and heed the Father’s voice.

By joining together in the supernatural, unwavering unity Jesus prayed for, we can witness a true spiritual awakening in our lifetime.

And we can solve some real problems in the process. (For more from the author of “The Most Loved and Hated Person — Jesus” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is the GOP Trying to Kill President Trump?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

I have long maintained that the Republican Party is a greater threat to representative democracy than the Democrats. Although they seek to misrepresent themselves, it is no secret what to expect from Democrats. But when Republicans lie to voters with repeatedly broken promises to resist the Democrats, voters are stripped of any election choice on controversial issues. Although it is clearly the function – and obligation – of a second major party to provide opposition, Republicans repeatedly have lied to get elected and then joined forces with the Democrats. I previously have described this in detail (here, here and here). Suffice it to note here the shock and high dudgeon in establishment Republican circles that President Trump has had the effrontery to try to keep his promises.

We now have a non-politician president for a very simple reason: voters are fed up with being lied to by Republican politicians. Having learned little, Republicans are still trying to betray the very people who voted for them. Just last week, Alfred S. Regnery declared that Senate Republicans are the “Best Allies” of obstructionist Democrats: “the Senate has confirmed 14 of the 549 senior federal positions that President Trump needs to run the government and who need Senate confirmation.”

This organized Democrat effort to prevent the new president from governing with his own people – rather than being forced to rely upon leftover Obama saboteurs – is, of course, unprecedented. But it is the Republicans who should answer to those who either voted for Trump or believe he should have a fair chance. Don’t the Republicans control the Senate? And didn’t Harry Reid do them a great favor by lowering the bar for cloture on nominations?

Regnery rightly says that the Senate Republicans are dragging their feet, taking time off and delaying even hearings on nominees. Regnery suggests that there ought to be a nonstop Senate session, every day and night until the Democrats get tired.

But this only scratches the surface of what Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could do if he did not want to sabotage Trump. If McConnell, praised by Politico, refuses to use available tools, the president should call for a new Majority Leader. McConnell’s tools are provided both by Senate Rules and by the very Constitution that all members of Congress swear to uphold.

Democrats, who never hesitate to play hard ball, are outdoing themselves by blocking nominees, some for the duration of the president’s term in office, Regnery explains. Either Republican senators should play hard ball too, or President Trump should explain to the people exactly why his nominees are being blocked, the tools available to unblock them, and the Republican complicity in the blockage.

The Republican Senate majority can respond to ruthless Democrats not only with nonstop round-the-clock sessions, but by applying Senate Rule VI, which provides that no senator may be absent without “leave” of the Senate. Like roaches who check into motels but can’t check out, Democrats who insist on “debating” nominees should not be allowed to leave the Senate at all – until all Trump nominees are confirmed! Moreover, when no quorum is present, a minority of the Senate can forcibly compel the appearance of AWOL senators.

Justice Ginsburg, a politican outspokenly anti-Trump, joined a 2014 liberal judicial activist opinion expanding the recess-appointment power of the president, an opinion strongly objected to by Justice Scalia and joined by Thomas, Roberts and Alito. According to Scalia, “The Court’s decision transforms the recess-appointment power … into a weapon to be wielded by future Presidents against future Senates.” Well, isn’t it well past the time, to hoist the liberal justices on their own petard and for President Trump to demand that the Senate Republicans recess for more than three days, as required by the Court’s liberal majority? To any objection that the Constitution requires that the Senate cannot adjourn for more than three days without permission of the House, the answer is simple. The Republicans control the House too. Would Speaker Ryan dare to refuse?

Finally, the Constitution contains this tasty little nugget for bypassing Schumer Democrats altogether: “Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.” Never done before? What is going on now has never been done before! Also, if obstructionist Democrats seek to filibuster passage of such a law, all that need be done is to apply Harry Reid’s nuclear option, which, after all, applies to presidential appointments.

_________________________________________

Lester Jackson, Ph.D., is a former college Political Science teacher, who has written about the Supreme Court, crime, capital punishment and American politics. He has detailed the suffering inflicted upon homicide victims and their survivors. His recent articles are collected here, here and here. He is currently completing a book explaining why capital punishment has been eviscerated and what can be done about it.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Please Don’t Tell Me Trump’s Speech to Congress Was Racist

/0 Comments/in , /by

During the Republican primaries, when I was most critical of candidate Trump, I still didn’t believe he was a racist (in general) or an anti-Semite (in particular), yet charges of racism and even anti-Semitism persist against him to this day. After his speech last night, it seems to me that only his most cynical critics can lodge such charges against him. Will you really say that his address to Congress was racist?

Trump’s Praise of Black Leaders and Heroes

Let’s start with black Americans.

He began his speech by saying, “Tonight, as we mark the conclusion of our celebration of Black History Month, we are reminded of our Nation’s path toward civil rights and the work that still remains.”

Was he seeking to get a message across? Quite obviously, he was.

Several minutes later (but still early in his speech), he said, “We’ve financed and built one global project after another, but ignored the fates of our children in the inner cities of Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit — and so many other places throughout our land.”

It is no secret that a disproportionately high percentage of black Americans live in these inner cities, and so here too, he appeared to be sending a message, including this line, a few minutes later, as well: “And our neglected inner cities will see a rebirth of hope, safety, and opportunity.”

And since black Americans suffer disproportionately from poverty and joblessness, were these lines directed their way as well? “Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force.” And, “Over 43 million people are now living in poverty, and over 43 million Americans are on food stamps.”

More overtly, he singled out a black American woman, Denisha Merriweather, as an example of the merit of private schools, calling her a “remarkable woman,” noting that she was the first in her family to graduate from college (soon to get her Master’s degree), and stating, “We want all children to be able to break the cycle of poverty just like Denisha.”

His first example of an American killed by an illegal immigrant was a 17-year-old black man, Jamiel Shaw, Jr., “an incredible young man, with unlimited potential who was getting ready to go to college where he would have excelled as a great quarterback. But he never got the chance. His father, who is in the audience tonight, has become a good friend of mine.” (Note also that Trump honored Susan Oliver, a black woman, whose husband Danny, a white man, was a policeman killed by an illegal immigrant.)

Of course, the critics blast Trump as being a hypocritical opportunist, using these individuals to advance his own cause. But for anyone listening with an open heart and mind, the overall impression would be clear: President Trump is reaching out to the African American community and saying, “We are in this together, and I want to help.”

Trump’s Stand Against Anti-Semitism and Hate Crimes

As for the Jewish people, also in his very first lines, Trump referenced “recent threats targeting Jewish Community Centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries,” while later stating, “I have also imposed new sanctions on entities and individuals who support Iran’s ballistic missile program, and reaffirmed our unbreakable alliance with the State of Israel.”

Could you imagine an anti-Semite speaking in these ways, mentioning the vandalism of the Jewish cemeteries in his first paragraph, and in the context of civil rights at that?

He also referenced at the outset “last week’s shooting in Kansas City,” where a gunman allegedly yelled “get out my country” before killing one Indian man and wounding another, also wounding a white American who tried to stop him.

In other words, nationalism for Trump does not mean war on immigrants.

As for the immigrants whom he is deporting, Trump said, “we are removing gang members, drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our citizens. Bad ones are going out as I speak tonight and as I have promised.”

Do even the most “progressive” Democrats really want to keep such dangerous people in our country, especially when they are here illegally? And can the president really be accused of being anti-immigrant or, more broadly, anti-Hispanic for saying that such criminals should be deported? For that matter, was President Obama an anti-Hispanic, anti-immigrant racist when he deported 43,000 illegals in 2015?

Trump’s Pledge to Help Protect Peaceful Muslims, Christians from ISIS

As for Islam, Trump could not have been more specific, saying, “We are also taking strong measures to protect our Nation from radical Islamic terrorism,” then proclaiming, “As promised, I directed the Department of Defense to develop a plan to demolish and destroy ISIS — a network of lawless savages that have slaughtered Muslims and Christians, and men, women, and children of all faiths and beliefs. We will work with our allies, including our friends and allies in the Muslim world, to extinguish this vile enemy from our planet.”

Here he made clear that radical Muslim terrorists are “lawless savages” (rather than model Muslims) who “have slaughtered Muslims and Christians, and men, women, and children of all faiths and beliefs,” significantly putting Muslims at the top of this list.

In other words, even though Christians in Islamic lands suffer most acutely at the hands of radical Muslims, while Christians in other countries are often targeted by radical Muslims, the greatest number of casualties of radical Muslims are themselves Muslims. That’s why the president pledged to work with “our friends and allies in the Muslim world, to extinguish this vile enemy from our planet.”

Can you genuinely say that Trump is anti-Muslim (rather than anti-radical Muslim) based on these carefully delivered words?

Hope For a Presidential Future?

He even reached out to women, stating, “With the help of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, we have formed a Council with our neighbors in Canada to help ensure that women entrepreneurs have access to the networks, markets and capital they need to start a business and live out their financial dreams.” (I’m not saying this removes charges of misogyny or undoes his past, inexcusable comments; I’m simply noting the statement and its purpose.)

Of course, critics like the extreme-left, Islamic congressman Keith Ellison will disparage Trump’s speech, claiming that Trump will say whatever he needs to say to sway public opinion but will not act accordingly. (Notably Ellison, along with DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz “reportedly remained ‘firmly seated’ while the widow of a slain Navy SEAL received a two-minute standing ovation, according to the Independent Journal Review’s Benny Johnson.”) And, obviously, this was just a speech.

But a speech is designed to accomplish certain goals and to send a certain message, and as far as a speech goes, the goals were clear and the message was clear.

Perhaps some of you who remain implacably opposed to the president will find room for at least a little hope? Perhaps some of you who have accused him of racism (and worse) might be willing to take a second look, give him some benefit of the doubt, and see if his actions match his words? Personally, I think it’s the least you can do.

For supporters of the president, his speech lived up to your expectations and proved that Donald Trump can truly act presidentially.

In the words of John Podhoretz, “In the first 38 days of his presidency, Donald Trump seemed to struggle to find his footing. On his 39th, he found it unexpectedly in a strong, direct and — surprise of surprises — beautifully modulated and spectacularly delivered address before Congress.” (For more from the author of “Please Don’t Tell Me Trump’s Speech to Congress Was Racist” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Trump Could Become a Lame Duck Right Now: Fall Into Udall’s SCOTUS Trap

/0 Comments/in , /by

If you wanted to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency, what advice would you give him? Let’s see. He ran as the candidate of the people against self-perpetuating elites; as a pro-life constitutional conservative who would appoint justices like Scalia; and as a tough negotiator who knew how get the best deal for his voters.

So if your goal was to ruin and humiliate President Trump, to split him from his voters and make him a virtual lame duck in his first year in office, you’d want to set a trap that if he triggered it, would expose all three of those claims as empty campaign rhetoric. You’d want to prove that Trump actually fawns on elites and betrays the people; that he was lying about his views on the Constitution and abortion; and that he’s really a gullible sap, in way over his head, who will trade the people’s birthright for a moldy mess of pottage.

Senate Democrat Offers a Suicide Move for Trump

And now there’s a Democratic senator who has exactly the plan to accomplish all that. As CNN reports:

Sen. Tom Udall has an idea that could place both Judge Neil Gorsuch and Judge Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court at the same time.

The Democrat from New Mexico presented the plan Monday morning to Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, as well as to Gorsuch’s team of White House aides and former Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who’s been attending Gorsuch’s meetings with senators.

His proposal is for Trump to meet privately with Supreme Court justices who are interested in retirement. If one of those justices decided they would be willing to retire, and if Trump promises to nominate Garland, President Barack Obama’s unconfirmed former SCOTUS pick, in their place, then the retiring justice would submit a letter of resignation contingent on that promise.

Then, both Garland and Gorsuch would be voted on simultaneously….

Republicans need eight Democrats to cross over and vote for Gorsuch in order to avoid a Democratic filibuster. Republicans can get around that rule by invoking the so-called “nuclear option,” requiring only a majority to move ahead with voting for the nominee. Udall said he doesn’t support changing any Senate rules.

I bet he doesn’t.

The sheer impudent gall of a Democratic senator proposing such a preemptive surrender for President Trump is almost astounding. After seven years of Barack Obama proposing far-left judicial activists to the Court, and the Republican Senate meekly confirming each of them, in his final months in office he responded to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia by picking Merrick Garland, a firm believer in the fetish of a “living Constitution.” What that phrase really means is that the Constitution’s words are dead as doornails, and may be safely ignored, in favor of what five Harvard or Stanford grads decide the Founders would have written if they were alive today — and went to the “right” schools and held all the “right” opinions.

Aren’t the American People Good Enough to Vote on Laws?

The “living Constitution” amounts, in fact, to a permanent sitting Constitutional convention controlled by the left, plucking one issue after another out of the grubby hands of “deplorable” voters, and enshrining their own policy preferences and moral views as virtual dogma — carved in stone, like Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges. Then any federal, state or local law can be summarily invalidated, if it violates the maxim made up by those five justices, and scrawled between the lines of our founding document.

If Trump accepted Udall’s “deal,” he’d be throwing away a crucial vote, most likely the deciding vote, on the U.S. Supreme Court, essentially giving Barack Obama a do-over appointment to the Court. Why would Udall believe for a second that Trump would roll over like that? Perhaps it is the long years Udall spent in the U.S. Senate, where the GOP did indeed let Democrats walk all over them, playing the Court nominations game like the Washington Generals — you know, the hapless team that suits up and lets itself get creamed by the Harlem Globetrotters.

Does Udall think Trump went through all the abuse and media frenzy, that he’s enduring the worst vilification in the history of American politics, to let Chuck Schumer and company steamroller him on his legacy? Because a key part of what Trump leaves behind will consist in his appointments to these lifetime positions on SCOTUS. If Trump were to hand the Democrats a free seat on that Court, just to avoid having to trash the cheap procedural trick called the judicial filibuster, he might as well build his wall to Mexico with missing sections every five miles, or let the Chinese government write up all of our trade deals. Why not give the U.N. control over America’s handling of refugees, while we’re at it?

Trash the Fake Filibuster

In fact, what Trump really needs to do is to let the Democrats filibuster Gorsuch, and force the GOP to tear up the filibuster. That will give him total freedom of action on his next Court appointment. He can tell Chuck Schumer and company to go fly a kite, and appoint Steve Bannon if he wants to. (Not a bad idea, come to think of it.) Why would Trump throw away that kind of power? Why betray the pro-life voters who elected him?

Sen. Udall seems to have missed what happened in the 2016 election. He thinks that Jeb! or Kasich was elected, someone who will trade away crucial points of principle in order to be well-liked. (Notice how the left is now rehabilitating George W. Bush, once he’s harmless and powerless.) Trumps knows that the left hates him. He has learned to take their lemons and make them into Trump brand lemon vodka. If he were to cave on the Court as Udall is suggesting, Trump might as well go back to running casinos. At least there, the House always wins. (For more from the author of “How Trump Could Become a Lame Duck Right Now: Fall Into Udall’s SCOTUS Trap” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Chromosomes Don’t Lie, and Biology Is Reality, Not Bigotry

/0 Comments/in , /by

It seems like my simple statement that “Caitlyn Jenner is a man wearing a dress” caught fire online on many sites and in different formats, expressing what millions of other Americans think and feel but are often reluctant to express lest they be branded hateful and intolerant. In the interest of fleshing that statement out and giving voice to the feelings of many others, let me state more of the obvious.

Immovable Truths

I do recognize that some people have biological or chromosomal abnormalities, often grouped together under the category of intersex but representing well under 2 percent (or even under 1 percent) of the population. But these very real exceptions only prove the rule, and in normal cases, which represent 98-99 percent of the population and therefore define cultural norms, the following truths remained fixed and immovable:

A biological male does not have female genitalia.

A biological male does not have female chromosomes.

A biological male does not get a monthly period.

A biological male cannot conceive or bear a child.

A biological female does not have male genitalia.

A biological female does not have male chromosomes.

A biological female does get a monthly period.

A biological female cannot impregnate another woman.

It also remains true that chromosomes do not lie (meaning, XY = male and XX = female, and abnormalities are just that — abnormalities) and that biology is not bigotry (this line is not original with me, but I’m not sure who said it first).

And so, a biological and chromosomal male who believes he is a woman is no more a woman than he is a dog, a fire hydrant, or a Martian. Conversely, a biological and chromosomal female who believes she is a man is no more a man than she is a zebra, a telephone, or a Neptunian.

It is true, of course, that the brain is part of the body, but it is also true that not everything the brain perceives to be reality is reality, which is why we say that someone has a psychological disorder when they deny the reality of the world that surrounds them — and no sane person calls that diagnosis hateful. Yet when we argue that many who identify as transgender do have a psychological disorder, we are told that we are driven by hate. On what basis?

Mixed Signals

Interestingly, when it comes to gender distinctions, radical feminists, LGBT activists, and other opponents of “heterosexism” send some very mixed signals. On the one hand, they tell us that the so-called gender binary (meaning, dividing the world into the distinct categories of male and female) is bigoted and antiquated. Then, on the other hand, they use stereotypical gender categories to argue for transgender identity.

For example, these activists want toy stores to become gender neutral, not just in their bathroom facilities but in the main shopping areas as well, no longer distinguishing between boys’ toys and girls’ toys. (Target made its toy aisles gender neutral in 2015.) Yet these same activists will tell you that little Sally is really a boy because she prefers playing with boys’ toys.

So, which is it? Is there such a thing as boys’ toys and girls’ toys or not? And, generally speaking, are there differences between male behavior and female behavior, between male tendencies and female tendencies, between male interests and female interests, between male perspectives and female perspectives?

More basically, is there a reason that Target has still not made its entire store gender neutral — in other words, is there a reason that Target still has distinct sections for men’s clothes and women’s clothes? This, of course, makes perfect sense, unless we think that the day is soon coming when men are as likely as women to wear a bra and panties. (If some really extreme activists had their way, I imagine that day would come sooner rather than later.)

What’s interesting, though, is that those of us who celebrate gender distinctions do so in non-rigid ways, recognizing that some boys may have certain interests and responses that are more feminine, while some girls may have certain interests and responses that are more masculine. Yet this does not mean that those boys are actually girls or that those girls are actually boys. Obviously not. To conclude that they were would be to confuse minor category exceptions with larger category rules.

A Bizarre Period in History

I truly believe that one day (may it come sooner than later!), we will look back with astonishment at this bizarre period of history, one in which perception was mistaken for reality, one in which one of our most lauded male athletes received a courage award for acquiring female breasts, one in which children too young to be left home alone — let alone drive a car, drink, or vote — were allowed to make long-term, body-altering decisions about their future, one in which whole states were punished and boycotted for refusing to allow teenage boys to play on girls’ sports teams and share locker rooms and shower stalls with them.

The positive takeaway from today’s social madness is that we have become more aware of those who struggle with deep gender identity issues, from early childhood to old age. May we better understand their struggles, may we become a more compassionate society, and may we work together to help them find true wholeness inside and out. And may the cultural madness cease.

We’ve had more than enough of gender-fluid teens and gender-blender adults and 50 ways (and more) to define your gender and college professors being required to address students as ze and xer and fae and thon.

It’s time we get back to reality. (For more from the author of “Chromosomes Don’t Lie, and Biology Is Reality, Not Bigotry” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.