The Capitulation and Downfall of the Boy Scouts to The Radical Gay Agenda

Would you let your 12-year-old daughter sleep in a tent with an 18-year-old boy?

I was driving in to work earlier this week, listening to a local talk show, when I did something I almost never do. I called in.

The subject was the decision by the governing board of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to allow openly gay adults to serve as den leaders, scoutmasters, and camp counselors.  How could I resist?  I am an Eagle Scout, and I have a book coming out next week called Scarlet Letters that deals with this larger subject.

When the producer screened me about my stance, I decided to hold off on more complex issues like freedom of assembly and the historical scout requisite to be “morally straight” and focus instead on the pragmatic.

I told him that as an Eagle Scout, I can attest to the cross-generational intimacy of the scouting experience.  Young boys, older teens, and men share a lot of private time.  They swim together, shower together, sleep in the same tents together.  On the everyday level, I told him, I would worry about the Jerry Sandusky factor.

The producer flipped.  “Are you saying that all gays are pedophiles?” he shot back angrily.  “No,” I said, “but would you let your twelve-year-old daughter sleep in a tent with an eighteen-year-old boy?”

He didn’t get my drift, so I had to explain it.  For a man to find an adolescent sexually attractive is not pedophilia.  It is human nature.  Pedophilia means an attraction to pre-pubescent children, eleven or younger.  To join the BSA, a boy must be at least eleven.  The Scouts have always encouraged older adolescents to assume intermediate leadership positions.  So it would not be unusual for an eighteen-year-old to share a tent with twelve- and thirteen-year-olds.

In her classic 1990 book Sexual Personae, Camille Paglia, herself a lesbian, wrote at length about the “beautiful boy of homosexual tradition.”  That attraction has underscored much of Western art for the last 2,500 or so years.  Writing twenty-five years ago, Paglia felt free to say the obvious.

That much said, gay men may have no more attraction to adolescents than straight men do.  For instance, in his autobiography, Roman, director Roman Polanski expressed shock that “I should be sent to prison, my life and career ruined, for making love.”  By “making love,” he was referring to the drugging and anal penetration of a thirteen-year-old girl.  He saw that as perfectly natural, as, apparently, did much of Hollywood.  Its denizens gave Polanski a standing O when he won an Oscar years after fleeing the United States.

Whether gay men have more or less attraction to young adolescents is beside the point.  What they do have is more access.  Now, in an act of institutional madness, BSA board members are licensing that access.  They are putting the gay male in a position in which no one in his right mind would put a straight male.  The sane answer to the question, “Would you let your twelve-year-old daughter sleep in a tent with an eighteen-year-old boy?” is, and always will be, “Are you nuts?”

What will the leadership tell the parents when the first semi-sanctioned cases of statutory rape come trickling in?  More to the point, perhaps, what will the leadership tell the attorneys representing those parents?

The Catholic Church has already faced this quandary.  Despite the headlines, only in rare instances was pedophilia the issue.  The real problem was the age-old one of allowing homosexual men unfettered access to unsuspecting adolescent boys.  The Church screens much more carefully now.  As a religious institution, it can get away with doing so.

It seems ironic that the left was hammering the Catholic Church for its lack of vigilance at the same time it was hammering the BSA for its excess.  This seeming contradiction makes sense when one understands that the left’s endgame was never to protect children or to advance gay rights.  The endgame is to destroy by whatever means necessary the traditional institutions that undergird Western civilization.

Regardless of how the various church groups respond to the new BSA directive, the left has won this battle.  Its foot soldiers have broken the feeble resistance of the governing board and eliminated the real Boy Scouts of America from the field.  Scout leadership was no better prepared for this war than the French were for theirs in 1940.

From now on, at the top, at least, collaboration will be the name of the game.  Within a generation, the Vichy wing of the BSA will collapse under the weight of its own pointlessness, and the resistance will fight on, even if without uniforms.

Be prepared!

Read more:


The Boy Scouts Rapid Descent into Madness: Unleashing Gay Pedophiles to Abuse Young Boys

Boy Scouts PSA

It does not matter the argument that anybody can come up with, allowing gay scout leaders is a terrible decision.


You can’t have homosexuals put in charge of young boys. Gay men obviously find other men sexually attractive, considering the fact that gay men are a very small minority of the population, one could assume that finding partners is a bit more difficult than finding a partner of the opposite sex. So now you have gay men who are in charge of a group of boys in a unsupervised environment. It’s like putting a fox in the chicken coop.

Look, you hear about school teachers having sex with their students regular basis, the majority of which are high school students. What makes anyone think that a homosexual will keep their hands off of young boys? This decision on the part of the Boy Scouts of America will destroy the lives of countless boys, mark my words within 6 months the news of scout leader abuse will hit the headlines. 

Any parent who has a kid in the Boy Scouts or is preparing to get their kids involved, I suggest you remove them from the program immediately. I live in one of the most conservative states in the country and a local news station interviewed a man who is gay and is planning on volunteering to be a scout leader, the man was not only out of the closet, he came out flaming. The thought of having someone like that as a leader for any of my kids turns my stomach. Thank goodness my kids are raised, but my nephews and grandsons are not and I will be damned if I will let them be involved in a program that could potentially ruin their lives.

It is my hope that enough people feel the way that I do and the Boy Scouts lose thousands upon thousands of scouts, maybe then they will understand that Americans are not willing to have their kids subjected to the homosexual lifestyle of a gay scout leader, and their decision to appease the LGTB community was a resounding disaster.

From A Nod to the Gods:

The Whirlwind is Coming

Hosea 8:7

For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk; the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.

Nahum 1:3

The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the Lord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.

Jeremiah 30:23

Behold, the whirlwind of the Lord goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind: it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked.

Jeremiah 23:19

Behold, a whirlwind of the Lord is gone forth in fury, even a grievous whirlwind: it shall fall grievously upon the head of the wicked.


Romans Chapter 1 (KJV)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

2 Timothy 3 King James Version (KJV)

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The Bible is Very Clear That These Things Will and Must Happen in the Last Days

Orthodox Christians Must Now Learn To Live as Exiles in Our Own Country

By Rod Dreher who is a senior editor and blogger at The American Conservative.

Voting Republican and other failed culture war strategies are not going to save us now

No, the sky is not falling — not yet, anyway — but with the Supreme Court ruling constitutionalizing same-sex marriage, the ground under our feet has shifted tectonically.

It is hard to overstate the significance of the Obergefell decision — and the seriousness of the challenges it presents to orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. Voting Republican and other failed culture war strategies are not going to save us now.

Discerning the meaning of the present moment requires sobriety, precisely because its radicalism requires of conservatives a realistic sense of how weak our position is in post-Christian America.

The alarm that the four dissenting justices sounded in their minority opinions is chilling. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia were particularly scathing in pointing out the philosophical and historical groundlessness of the majority’s opinion. Justice Scalia even called the decision “a threat to democracy,” and denounced it, shockingly, in the language of revolution.

It is now clear that for this Court, extremism in the pursuit of the Sexual Revolution’s goals is no vice. True, the majority opinion nodded and smiled in the direction of the First Amendment, in an attempt to calm the fears of those worried about religious liberty. But when a Supreme Court majority is willing to invent rights out of nothing, it is impossible to have faith that the First Amendment will offer any but the barest protection to religious dissenters from gay rights orthodoxy.

Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito explicitly warned religious traditionalists that this decision leaves them vulnerable. Alito warns that Obergefell “will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” and will be used to oppress the faithful “by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

The warning to conservatives from the four dissenters could hardly be clearer or stronger. So where does that leave us?

For one, we have to accept that we really are living in a culturally post-Christian nation. The fundamental norms Christians have long been able to depend on no longer exist. To be frank, the court majority may impose on the rest of the nation a view widely shared by elites, but it is also a view shared by a majority of Americans. There will be no widespread popular resistance to Obergefell. This is the new normal.

For another, LGBT activists and their fellow travelers really will be coming after social conservatives. The Supreme Court has now, in constitutional doctrine, said that homosexuality is equivalent to race. The next goal of activists will be a long-term campaign to remove tax-exempt status from dissenting religious institutions. The more immediate goal will be the shunning and persecution of dissenters within civil society. After today, all religious conservatives are Brendan Eich, the former CEO of Mozilla who was chased out of that company for supporting California’s Proposition 8.

Third, the Court majority wrote that gays and lesbians do not want to change the institution of marriage, but rather want to benefit from it. This is hard to believe, given more recent writing from gay activists like Dan Savage expressing a desire to loosen the strictures of monogamy in all marriages. Besides, if marriage can be redefined according to what we desire — that is, if there is no essential nature to marriage, or to gender — then there are no boundaries on marriage. Marriage inevitably loses its power.

In that sense, social and religious conservatives must recognize that the Obergefell decision did not come from nowhere. It is the logical result of the Sexual Revolution, which valorized erotic liberty. It has been widely and correctly observed that heterosexuals began to devalue marriage long before same-sex marriage became an issue. The individualism at the heart of contemporary American culture is at the core of Obergefell — and at the core of modern American life.

This is profoundly incompatible with orthodox Christianity. But this is the world we live in today.

One can certainly understand the joy that LGBT Americans and their supporters feel today. But orthodox Christians must understand that things are going to get much more difficult for us. We are going to have to learn how to live as exiles in our own country. We are going to have to learn how to live with at least a mild form of persecution. And we are going to have to change the way we practice our faith and teach it to our children, to build resilient communities.

It is time for what I call the Benedict Option. In his 1982 book After Virtue, the eminent philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre likened the current age to the fall of ancient Rome. He pointed to Benedict of Nursia, a pious young Christian who left the chaos of Rome to go to the woods to pray, as an example for us. We who want to live by the traditional virtues, MacIntyre said, have to pioneer new ways of doing so in community. We await, he said “a new — and doubtless very different — St. Benedict.”

Throughout the early Middle Ages, Benedict’s communities formed monasteries, and kept the light of faith burning through the surrounding cultural darkness. Eventually, the Benedictine monks helped refound civilization.

I believe that orthodox Christians today are called to be those new and very different St. Benedicts. How do we take the Benedict Option, and build resilient communities within our condition of internal exile, and under increasingly hostile conditions? I don’t know. But we had better figure this out together, and soon, while there is time.

Last fall, I spoke with the prior of the Benedictine monastery in Nursia, and told him about the Benedict Option. So many Christians, he told me, have no clue how far things have decayed in our aggressively secularizing world. The future for Christians will be within the Benedict Option, the monk said, or it won’t be at all.

Obergefell is a sign of the times, for those with eyes to see. This isn’t the view of wild-eyed prophets wearing animal skins and shouting in the desert. It is the view of four Supreme Court justices, in effect declaring from the bench the decline and fall of the traditional American social, political, and legal order.

We live in interesting times.


SCOTUS Obergefell decision Has Opened Pandora’s Box and Christian Persecution is about to Escalate


Anyone who has played sports knows that strange feeling where you look up and see you’re not just losing but getting clobbered, despite feeling like you were doing well. Maybe the last time you looked up it was close and now it is a blowout. Perhaps you feel like you’re competing, but the other side just keeps pulling away. When you’re in the heat of the battle, it is easy to not only lose sight of the bigger picture, but get a wildly incorrect view of that bigger picture.

Reading conservative sites the last week, I’m getting that vibe from both the chattering skulls and their readers who show up in the comments. There’s a state of shock at what has transpired over the two weeks.Their preferred party sold them out to please global finance. The court untethered itself from the English language and made itself the enforcer for the Cult of Modern Liberalism. Not only was the Right not winning, they were blown off the field.

As I pointed out the other day, the gay marriage ruling is the biggest assault on religious liberty in the history of the nation. One cannot read the majority opinion without wondering how long before the courts declare Christianity illegal.

The ObamaCare decision is the most radical in the history of the court. Judge Roberts literally declared that the English language is no longer a constraint on the court, which means they no longer have to read the relevant laws in future cases.

Most of the Right is in shock, unable to muster more than the old complaints that sound rather silly given what has just transpired. Surprisingly, Rod Dreher gets it, as far where things stand for people of his faith. That’s a well written essay displaying the right amount of sadness for what he and his coreligionists face in the coming years.

No, the sky is not falling — not yet, anyway — but with the Supreme Court ruling constitutionalizing same-sex marriage, the ground under our feet has shifted tectonically.

It is hard to overstate the significance of the Obergefell decision — and the seriousness of the challenges it presents to orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. Voting Republican and other failed culture war strategies are not going to save us now.

Discerning the meaning of the present moment requires sobriety, precisely because its radicalism requires of conservatives a realistic sense of how weak our position is in post-Christian America.

What Rod and others got wrong is they thought they were in the fight. They truly thought they were giving the other side a battle over who will control society. The fact is, they never had a chance. They were getting their butt kicked for decades. The last week is just the part where the other team does the outrageous celebration on the loser’s team logo.

Last week was part of the mopping up phase of the culture war. The major institutions of the West have all been converted to the Cult of Modern Liberalism. There are no cultural institutions that stand in opposition to any of this stuff.

Their breathless support is seen in the speed with which retailers banished the rebel flag. A white guy shoots up a black church and the Cult demands a sacrifice in return. Hours after the gay marriage ruling major companies were celebrating it in TV commercials. You would not be cynical to think that maybe this has all been coordinated.

It’s tempting to think that normal people will resist, but history says otherwise. The Catholic Church is maneuvering to join the Cult on global warming. The Pope has already made noises about embracing the homosexual agenda. Everyone with something to lose is figuring out that it is time to join the winning side. You can be sure that the rest of the Christian sects will follow the Catholics into the abyss.

I received an e-mail from Paul Gottfried a while back, in response to one I sent him. I don’t know Professor Gottfried and he does not know me. I doubt he knows of this blog. Today, no one thinks twice about firing off an e-mail to a stranger and I’m no different. I sent off my query after reading this column.

It occurred to me that we are losing a lot of important knowledge as the geezers of the Old Right die off. They are the last ones to remember the old fights and why we find ourselves where we are. Professor Gottfried would do us all a great service by putting together a list of writers and books that the next generation could use in the resistance.

He was not interested and sounded a bitter tone in his response. Professor Gottfried, like many on the Old Right, has been shunned and forced to live on the fringes. The fringes of the public intellectual space, that is. Almost all of these guys used to write for mainstream publications and conservative publications with wide circulations. One by one they were proscribed starting in the 1980’s.

I really don’t blame these guys for being bitter, assuming they are bitter. They were right from the start. In the 80’s, when being Right was suddenly cool, all sorts of faddish sorts jumped on board, but few possessed the social core required to carry the fight to the Progressives. Instead they went in for whatever was fashionable to sell books, radio shows and ugly ties. Instead of building a movement that could displace the Left, they sucked it dry. The so-called paleo-cons predicted this result.

That’s all water under the bridge now. There’s value in learning from past defeats, but the time for that has passed as well. The only job left is to pack up the old books and articles in the hope that some future generation, looking for a way out, discovers them and find some inspiration.

From Z Blog:

Think the SCOTUS decision on Gay Marriage is about “Gay Marriage?” Better think again.


After The Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council declared marriage, as we have known it for 10,000 years, to be null and void, most of the chattering skulls on what passes for the Right these days went into predictable hysterics. Progressive lunatics decorated themselves in rainbows, celebrating without fully understanding what it is they are celebrating. They just like gloating.

So far the only chattering skull to sort of get what’s happening is David French at National Review.

The most striking aspect of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which created a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, was its deep emotion. This was no mere legal opinion. Indeed, the law and Constitution had little to do with it. (To Justice Kennedy, the most persuasive legal precedents were his own prior opinions protecting gay rights.) This was a statement of belief, written with the passion of a preacher, meant to inspire.

Consider the already much-quoted closing: As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

Or this:

“Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there.”

This isn’t constitutional law, it’s theology — a secular theology of self-actualization — crafted in such a way that its adherents will no doubt ask, “What decent person can disagree?” This is about love, and the law can’t fight love. Justice Kennedy’s opinion was nine parts romantic poetry and one part legal analysis (if that).

It has always been theology. The striking thing about the century long battle between the Cult of Modern Liberalism and the American Right is how uneven the fight has been. One side is focused, never losing sight of the bigger goals. The other side is composed of blithering idiots convinced they can talk their opponents out of destroying them.

And destruction is the only end possible. The Cult never loses sight of their main targets. The health care bill was mostly changes in the law to interfere with the free exercise of religion. Forcing some Christians to pay for abortions, for example, is forcing them to violate their faith. Do that enough and even the faithful give up. History is clear. Conversion is always compulsory.

This piece in America’s Newspaper of Record shines the light on what comes next.

On Friday, in a momentous decision, the Supreme Court allowed same-sex marriages nationwide. But the fight over how those weddings are accommodated or recognized, particularly by religious organizations, is far from over.

Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissent noted the many outstanding issues, which is why he would have preferred states passing laws allowing gay marriage, rather than judicial fiat. For Roberts, only legislation or voter initiatives signal “true acceptance.” Also, “respect for sincere religious conviction” led to “accommodations for religious practice” in every jurisdiction to democratically adopt it.

Those religious-liberty protections make clear that pre-existing bans on sexual-orientation discrimination — which provide sorely needed protections to LGBT individuals in housing, hiring and public accommodations — do not inadvertently spill over to a religious sacrament like marriage.

For example, in DC, Maryland, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Washington, marriage counseling provided by churches could continue to cater exclusively to heterosexual couples. After extensive hearings, legislatures in four states expressly provided that religious social-services agencies could continue to place children exclusively with heterosexual married couples, although in three states, such placements may occur only if the program receives no public money.

The First Amendment, courts agree, means churches can refuse to conduct religious ceremonies for same-sex partners if it conflicts with their belief. But what if, say, a couple wants to hold a reception in a church basement? Can they be refused?

The dissenters skewered Justice Anthony Kennedy for trivializing the impact on religious believers. Kennedy says, “The First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.”

Clarence Thomas countered that “individuals and churches [will be] confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples,” an “inevitability” that the majority’s “weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph” is wholly insufficient to address. Samuel Alito worried that “those who cling to old beliefs . . . risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”

At oral argument, Alito asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli the question nagging many religiously affiliated educational institutions — the fact that Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status in the 1980s because it opposed interracial marriage. “So, would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same­-sex marriage?”

Verrilli conceded that tax exemption is “certainly going to be an issue.”

Of course it is going to be an issue. It has always been the issue. The whole point of gay marriage, after all, is to further bust up the traditional family and to marginalize Christian churches. A central tenet of the Cult of Modern Liberalism is the first and only loyalty of the people is to the state. The state is not just a government but the entirety of life. Nothing is outside the state, including God. This reads like it was written yesterday by Barak Obama for a reason.

What will happen from here is a wave of lawsuits against anyone and everyone holding out against the Homintern. This will include churches. Initially the courts will try to beat back this assault on the First Amendment, but in a decade the cost of not embracing the sodomite banner will break the remaining holdouts. Churches that refuse to perform gay weddings will lose their tax exempt status. Many will close. Being a Christian will be equated with being in the Klan.

From The Z Blog:

Something is glaringly left out of the gay marriage frenzy: Children.

What Life Is Like When Children of Gay Couples Don’t Matter

On March 27, 2015, five other children of gays (COGs) and I went to Washington, D.C. to deliver our amicus briefs to the Supreme Court of the United States.  The biographies of Heather Barwick, Katy Faust, BN Klein, Robert Oscar Lopez, Denise Shick, and Dawn Stefanowicz have already been narrated, perhaps excessively, in conservative publications, so I will not waste the reader’s time by recounting the specifics of each confessional.  What should have mattered – and what, as it turns out, didn’t matter – is our categorical identity.  We are the real-life faces of people with serious standing in the question of gay marriage.

Especially in light of Justice Kennedy’s sweeping inclusion of custody and birth certificates in his definition of gay adults’ Fourteenth Amendment “equal protection” rights, gay marriage has a much greater impact on children than it ever could have had on gay couples.  Whereas gay adults may get married, then get divorced, and even remarry to the opposite sex if they wish, children placed in mother-mother or father-father homes are irreparably estranged from half or all their heritage, and permanently denied a mother or denied a father.

Among the six of us, many including myself are former supporters of gay marriage.  Why?  Because we loved our guardians and did not want society to treat them as inferiors.  They were a big part of our lives, regardless of whatever imperfections we may have described in our memories of growing up.  They mattered to us.  By extension, gays and lesbians mattered to us.  We changed our mind and started opposing gay marriage when we realized we didn’t matter to gays and lesbians.  And the fact that we counted for so little in the eyes of the community asking for total power over people like us was not only emotionally hurtful, but also, and perhaps more importantly, politically terrifying.

A funny thing happened on the way to equality.  It started with tales of lesbians stuck in the hospital after car accidents, unable to receive their own lovers as visitors.  Who could oppose legal protections to prevent such tragedies from happening?  I bought into these anecdotes partly because I remember during my mother’s convalescence how important it was for her lover to be at her bedside.  And of course there were tales of teenage boys being bullied by mean kids after school.  As someone called a sissy and chased down by serious jerks, I was willing to endorse anything that might ease the suffering of people targeted by hate and intolerance.

Then there was a bait and switch.  Suddenly self-appointed leaders of the Gay and Lesbian Community, Inc., decided that receiving legal recognition was not enough.  They had to have the right to have children – and not just on the terms forced upon the vast majority of society, but solely on their terms.  They wanted to have legally recognized and government-subsidized relationships with the same sex.  They wanted to exclude adults of the opposite sex from their home, intimate lives, and property.  They wanted the bodies of children – to wit, loving and obedient children – in their homes, genetically connected to them if possible.  They wanted nobody in the home (including the kids), nobody in their neighborhood, nobody on TV, and eventually nobody in the entire world to make any passing reference purposeful or casual to the fact that this arrangement was strange, came with risks, and might be unfair to the very kids the couples expected to love them.

These demands are incredibly unreasonable and cruel, not only to the children, but to all the other parties whose kinship bonds must be mangled or who must be silenced in order to meet such a tall order.  My criticisms fell on hostile ears.  I have been deemed anti-gay, an ex-gay, a virulent homophobe, an exporter of hate, and a million other epithets.  At this point the accusations are so predictable and commonplace I rarely notice them.  My routine: “What is it, Tuesday today?  Oh, the Human Rights Campaign has linked me to people who drafted anti-gay laws in Uganda, a complete lie.  Whatever.  Time to get ready for my morning lecture on Whitman.”

But let’s set aside the meanness and irrational vitriol that have become a mainstay of gay internet trolling and look objectively at what gay leaders were demanding.  Is it reasonable to expect to have children without building a life with the children’s other parents?  Along with this demand goes the demand for silence and speech-policing on the parts of the outside world to keep such captive children from ever hearing anything that might trigger a liberating thought in their mind.  Forbidden are the thoughts that have sparked the movements of oppressed people to rise up in the past: I see what has been done to me.  I see injustice.  This is not fair.  I must speak truth and call this unfair, or I will suffer in silence.  I must call injustice by its name.

Let’s be real.  These are unreasonable things to ask for.  Regardless of how many cute photographs run on The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times, it isn’t fair to the children, and many of the children will eventually awaken to harm that’s been done to them.  You can run cereal ads about gay men adopting children for only so long before the fakeness and shallowness become painfully apparent.  Not only is it unreasonable, but such petulant expectations of society reflect serious character flaws.  People who scream that they want things that go far beyond what is rational to expect are – what do we call them? – petulant, selfish, inconsiderate, solipsistic, overly entitled, arrogant, spoiled.  These are adjectives that describe individuals and can also describe trends of entire social groups.  These are adjectives I would use to describe the gay activist community’s attitudes about children.  They want women’s eggs, women’s wombs, men’s sperm, given to them at dirt-cheap prices, and kids to populate their estates who won’t utter a peep of protest, especially in front of other people.

What begins as an unreasonable, skewed perception of one’s entitlements vis-à-vis the world quickly turns to cruelty.  The many COGs who have come forward with mixed reviews about gay parenting have gotten brutally attacked, not by homophobic Christians who hate their parents, but rather by gay parenting advocates who hate anybody proposing limits on their demands.  Many of us have gotten fired or been blacklisted professionally by gay professionals writing to employers or other authorities in our fields of work.  All of us have been threatened, bombarded with defamatory slurs, and slandered by gay people who raise children or who want to.

If there were any doubts about giving gay people children before, their reaction to COGs should really settle the matter.  Not a single lesbian mother or gay father came forward in the midst of all the attacks against us COGs to say, “I have a child at home and don’t want my child to be treated like this by our community.  Stop!”  Not one.  If there had been one, or two, or five, coming forward and saying something like this, I would not make a sweeping generalization.  But sometimes problems are generalized, and whole communities of people share collective responsibility.

The gay community is full of people who should not be trusted with children.  They don’t think as parents.  If they had the minds of parents, they would see dissident COGs being mistreated and see a mirror of the children they are raising or hope to raise.  Instead, they see dissident COGs and see people threatening their own petulant and irresponsible expectations declared in the name of their gay identity.  In other words, they think about themselves and don’t actually think about the children, except as a means to satisfy themselves.

Countless heterosexuals are awful parents, but the government does not make it a general policy to look past their awful behavior and promise them the love and obedience of other people’s children.  When people criticize their awful heterosexual parents, heterosexual parents listening to the criticism generally think in terms of how unfair things were to kids.

Awful heterosexual parents are structurally and existentially worlds apart from the awfulness of the gay community’s parenting practices.

The gay community told all of society, over 20 years ago, that they could be trusted with other people’s children.  When children emerged as the fulfillment of the demands this community made of society, many of them had stories that ran counter to what the gay community promised.  The gay community had nothing to say.  Pro-gay Americans had nothing to say.  Conservatives just wanted to talk about their own Christian principles being threatened by having to bake cakes for lesbian weddings.  Nobody had anything to say about the fact that a grand social experiment had been based on vows that an irrational, conceited community had made and broken, with no sense of repentance.

Justice Anthony Kennedy and the four conspirators in his willful ignorance – Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg – were given ample opportunities to look past hashtags, propaganda, and the gay community’s temper tantrums.  They signed off on a decision in Obergefell, which essentially argued this: (1) Gay people have suffered in the past.  (2) The Fourteenth Amendment was passed to protect the liberty and due process of people who have suffered.  (3) Ergo, anything that gay people want is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  If they want children and have the money to buy them, have at it.

But according to Justice Kennedy, the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect children whom gay people demand as an entitlement.  Children of gays are slaves.  Justice Kennedy made no reference whatsoever to the COGs who had submitted detailed amicus briefs to him.  The four dissenting justices made no reference to us, either.  In the eyes of the court, we do not exist.  Some COGs do exist: that is, children of gays who refrain from criticizing their loss of their heritage and who cheer for the gays who control them and keep them silent.  At least the latter “good” children get to exist.  But they don’t really matter any more than we do.  If they mattered, they would have the liberty to say the things we say, which they clearly don’t.

W.E.B. DuBois once mused on the question that crossed black men’s minds: what is it like to be a problem?  The question crosses my mind: what is it like when you don’t matter?

I inhabit a horrible world and am a citizen of a nation I increasingly fear and despise.  Having devoted my whole life to studying early American literature and celebrating our country’s cultural and political roots, I find it hard to be positive anymore.  My nation used me and people like me as toys for their little political games.  My country ruined my humanity and broke all its promises to me.

When you don’t matter, you can’t trust anyone.  And I don’t.  Life is lonely and heartbreaking when you don’t matter.  With each day the Christian in me grows and the American in me withers: perhaps, I tell myself, God has dealt us these painful blows so that we realize that government is not religion, courts are not church, and judges like Anthony Kennedy are no gods.  A higher purpose exists – I know that now, better than I ever have.  That is the only positive thing about living life as someone who doesn’t matter.

Robert Oscar Lopez edited Jephthah’s Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family “Equality.”

Read more:

No Shame Anymore

Let’s Bring Back Guilt and Shame

Posted on | June 26, 2015

By Stacy McCain

“I was twelve when I discovered porn.”

So begins “How I Came Out: Part 2 – My Bisexual Awakening” by Kaitlyn, a 22-year-old graduate of Pacific Lutheran University.

Please stop laughing long enough to think about this. Remember when “coming out” meant someone was actually, y’know, gay?

What’s the point of “coming out” as bisexual?

If you are actually with somebody of the same sex — which is to say, you’re in a gay relationship — then this could cause a situation at the family Thanksgiving gathering. But if all you’re doing, in terms of your bisexuality, is occasionally hooking up with partners of either sex, do you need to “come out” about that? Why?


Politics, really. Adding another soldier to the LGBT Social Justice Army in their Grand March to abolish normality. So if you ever had an “incident” at Scout camp or engaged in some “Wow, I was so drunk last night” shenanigans at college, it is now Urgently Important that you must tell everybody on the Internet. This is what Tumblr blogs are for.

Thanks for sharing your adolescent porn habits with us, Kaitlyn.

“Dear Penthouse Forum . . .”

Excuse my habitual sarcasm, but it’s hard to avoid suspecting that perversion was more fun when everybody knew it was wrong.

Now that every college has an LGBT club and every major city has a “pride” parade, the abolition of sexual shame has also abolished the frisson of pursuing Forbidden Pleasure. If nothing is taboo anymore — a lesbian comedian is hosting a popular daytime TV show and a former Olympic star makes the cover of Vanity Fair as “transgender” — where can anyone find the thrill of Guilty Secrets? As weirdness becomes more and more normalized in society, it also inevitably becomes more boring.

Young people nowadays can be excused if they find themselves wondering what life was like in the Bad Old Days, when fornication was regarded as a sin and sodomy was an abomination. Kids may be nostalgic for a society that required us to repress our unruly teenage impulses, when guys felt guilty for trying to get to third base with their girlfriends.

Well, we were supposed to feel guilty, anyway.

She’s your adolescent dream,
Schoolboy stuff, a sticky sweet romance.
And she makes you want to scream,
Wishing you could get inside her pants.
So, you fantasize away.
And while you’re squeezing her,
You thought you heard her saying . . .

“Good girls don’t,
Good girls don’t,
Good girls don’t, but I do.”

The distinction between Good Girls and Bad Girls was, of course, both a cruel fiction and a vital bulwark of social morality. Perhaps unspeakable depravity lurked in the subconscious of all those Good Girls whose respectable boyfriends were afraid to try to even get past second base. Certainly I was not the only long-haired rock-and-roll outlaw who suspected that most Good Girls secretly wanted to be Bad Girls. Yet the forces of repression were still strong — I grew up deep in the Bible Belt, where the Sexual Revolution didn’t win a sudden and complete victory — and the innate capacity for wickedness was restrained, so it is likely that most Good Girls believed they actually were good.

So, you call her on the phone
To talk about the teachers that you hate.
And she says she’s all alone,
And her parents won’t be coming home til late.
There’s a ringing in your brain,
Cause you could’ve sworn
You thought you heard her saying . . .

“Good girls don’t,
Good girls don’t,
Good girls don’t, but I do.”

Sneaky teenage guilt is ancient history now. Nothing is repressed in 2015. Perverts are marching down Main Street beneath the Rainbow Flag, declaring their pride in being abnormal, and anyone who fails to applaud the parade is condemned as a hater. As I’ve said, “Until I started studying radical feminism, I never thought of ‘normal’ as an achievement.” Feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — tends toward the conclusion that it’s wrong to be normal. These weird ideas, promulgated in university Women’s Studies programs, have been diffused through our culture to such an extent we may imagine young people feeling ashamed to confess that they are heterosexual. In the 21st century, a teenage girl’s peers would treat her as an outcast and a misfit if she were to declare her ambition was to fall in love with a nice guy, marry him, have babies and live in a 3BR/2BA house in the suburbs.


Being normal is old-fashioned and old-fashioned is oppressive. Therefore, the Good Girl is now stigmatized for her virtue, because feminists tell her she should be “empowered” (Yes Means Yes!) to express her sexuality, while no one can condemn the Bad Girl, because that would be “slut-shaming.” Traditional morality having thus been totally inverted — calling to mind Nietzsche’s “transvaluation of all values” — the teenage girl finds herself thrown to the wolves and expected to perform her “empowered” sexuality with that most horrible and hideous beast, the teenage boy.

And it’s a teenage sadness
Everyone has got to taste.
An in-between age madness
That you know you can’t erase . . .

“Good Girls Don’t,” as Doug Feiger sang in 1979, and it’s astonishing how this “in-between age madness” has gotten even more out of control now than it was in the Seventies, when more or less everybody in high school was on drugs. Let it be noted that Fast Times at Ridgemont High was actually based on a true story, a 1981 book by Cameron Crowe:

As a freelance writer for Rolling Stone magazine, Crowe went undercover at Clairemont High School in San Diego, California, and wrote about his experiences.

If that now-classic teen movie exaggerated reality for comic effect, many of us who lived through that era — before the AIDS epidemic, before mandatory “safe sex” lessons in public schools — nonetheless recognize the reality behind the laughs. There were a lot of real-life human tragedies amid all that sex, drugs and rock-and-roll. Hearts were broken and lives were ruined, and the only thing that could possibly make sense of it all was the music on the radio.

You’re alone with her at last,
And you’re waiting til you think the time is right.
Cause you’ve heard she’s pretty fast.
And you’re hoping that she’ll give you some tonight.
So, you start to make your play,
Cause you could’ve sworn you
Thought you heard her saying . . .

“Good girls don’t,
Good girls don’t,
Good girls don’t, but I do.”

It’s a miracle any of us rock-and-roll kids survived that era. You might think we would have learned enough from our experience to prevent a revival of that deviant culture, but it seems that many so-called “grown-ups” learned all the wrong lessons from their decadent youth.

“Well, we managed to make it through all right,” these alleged adults seem to have concluded, “so let’s just let our kids figure it out for themselves.” Then one day you log onto the Internet and find a young Lutheran’s bisexual confession: “I was twelve when I discovered porn.”

Sex, Shame and the Dark Side

Kaitlyn’s kinky confession echoes “Belle Knox,” as the Duke University Women’s Studies major Miriam Weeks called herself in her video porn career. She appeared on The View in March 2014:

The 18-year-old . . . was raised a devout Catholic in a loving home in Spokane, Washington.
Miriam’s Catholic father Kevin and mother Harcharan, reportedly have been ‘floored’ by their daughter’s decision to turn to porn to fund her $60,000-a-year education at the elite school.
Miss Weeks said today that her parents were not aware of her decision to enter the porn industry but are now ‘absolutely supportive’ of her choice.
She added: ‘We tell our children through school and socialization that sexuality is bad’ before adding to the shock of the panelists that she had been watching online porn alone since the age of 12.

“Good Girls Don’t,” but good girls are a scarce commodity in a hypersexualized society where feminists adamantly insist that every girl has a right to be bad (Yes Means Yes!) while at the same time feminists denounce the bad girl’s male partners as sexual oppressors who are products of “rape culture.” Young people are understandably confused by this cacophony of demonic voices telling them they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t. It seems that many teen girls do, and then wish they hadn’t done it. Pressured into playing the Bad Girl, they find themselves overcome with inexplicable feelings of shame.

“Dubious claims about ‘rape culture’ are an attempt to create an all-purpose scapegoat for the emotional dark side of promiscuity,” Robert Tracinski wrote in February 2015:

College campuses have long since been taken over by a culture in which casual sex with acquaintances is considered normal and where slightly outré sexual experimentation is strongly encouraged, all of it spurred on by alcohol, which figures prominently in most of these cases. But it’s clear that some young women are not psychologically prepared for this. They have casual relationships and hookups, but then feel regret and emotional trauma when the experience ends up being emotionally unsatisfying or disturbing. Then they are encouraged, by the feminists and “rape culture” activists, to reinterpret the experience as all the fault of an evil man who must have coerced them.
It’s a system which systematically preys on and exploits the emotional vulnerability of young women in order to use them as publicity fodder for an ideological agenda.

As bad as this is for college students who are “not psychologically prepared” to deal with the emotional consequences of sexual hedonism, this is happening to even younger girls. Consider this story:

An x-rated video of Vine star Carter Reynolds leaked Sunday that purportedly shows him pressuring his ex-girlfriend for oral sex, raising issues of consent and spurring Internet backlash.
The video is filmed from Reynolds’ point of view, with his pants pulled down and his erect penis exposed. His ex-girlfriend, Instagram celeb Maggie Lindemann, tells him “I don’t think I can” and repeatedly stresses “I am really uncomfortable.” Reynolds tells her to “do it,” and “just pretend (the camera) isn’t there.” Lindemann eventually curls up and stops looking at the camera. It ends with Reynolds saying, “Oh my gosh, Maggie.”
The duo has had a tumultuous relationship, with several breakups, the most recent of which was in May. Lindemann is 16 years old, and Reynolds recently turned 19, leaving issues of consent and statutory rape on the table depending when and where the clip was filmed, as well as child pornography issues depending on how old Reynolds is in the video. . . .
Fans and fellow social media celebs have taken to social media in anger over Reynolds’ actions.

Who are these teenage Internet “celebrities”? How is it that a 19-year-old boy gains a sort of cult fame by uploading iPhone videos, and then finds a girlfriend who is herself a “social media celeb”?


This kind of do-it-yourself adolescent notoriety is altogether commonplace in the 21st century, and there is no adult supervision to the process whereby kids become “famous for being famous.” So it was that Carter Reynolds, while still a high school senior in North Carolina, got more than 1,600 retweets by declaring “school can suck it” in January 2014. We fast-forward to June 2015, when Reynolds has exploited his Internet fame to get himself a famous Internet girlfriend, and now she’s the one who is commanded to “suck it.” Meanwhile, who is Maggie Lindemann and why is she so famous? She’s a pretty brunette from Texas, but if she has any actual talent or intellectual ability, you wouldn’t know it from reading her Twitter account, where more than a quarter-million followers await such of her delphic utterances as, “the cutest” (June 15, 351 retweets) and  “I regret you” (June 16, 570 retweets). After the leaked video of Reynolds trying to coerce her into a video performance of oral sex made headlines, Lindemann tweeted:

I’m ok and have positive people with me. Trust that this is being handled and I’ve been told I cant comment on it at this time. Love you.

That message got more than 3,000 retweets and 12,000 likes.

Something has gone terribly wrong in our culture, you see. Fame has been cheapened to nothing, and sex is even cheaper. These shallow pseudo-celebrities are made by the Internet and then broken by the Internet before most people have ever even heard of them.

Kids log onto the Internet to worship at the digital altar of their idols, crude vulgarians who seem to have no qualifications beyond their narcissistic craving for admiration. When it is predictably revealed that Carter Reynolds is a selfish creep — really? who could have imagined this?we are subjected to pious lectures:

“Couples do stuff like that all time.”
That sentence just about sums up Vine star Carter Reynolds’ psuedo-apology on Twitter after footage of Reynolds pressuring his then 17-year-old girlfriend into sex leaked onto the Internet. . . .
Despite the widespread prevalence of intimate partner abuse, it’s one aspect of rape culture we tend to ignore, partially due to the widespread victim blaming that survivors experience.

Oh, give me a break! You’re telling me that no one had the slightest inkling that Carter “School Can Suck It” Reynolds might have profound antisocial tendencies? The parents of Maggie Lindemann had no reason to be concerned when their underage daughter hooked up with Reynolds via the 2014 “Magcon” tour? Why should we heed sermons about “rape culture” by the same “journalists” who otherwise act as publicity agents for the fame-junkie culture that turned a no-talent dimwit like Carter Reynolds into a celebrity? Whatever happened to shame? Whatever happened to making achievement and virtuous character the basis of respect? Stipulating that the rock-and-roll idols of yore were generally a bunch of sex-crazed drug addicts, at least they bothered learning to sing, play instruments and write songs. When did Carter Reynolds ever do anything that would cause anyone to think he was worthy of admiration? And did it not occur to any of his admirers that a famous idiot like Carter Reynolds might not have much respect for the idiots who admired him?

Let’s not be naïve about the habits of such people, OK? Don’t lecture me like I’m a fool in need of your enlightenment. We all know exactly what Carter Reynolds was doing when he tried to talk Maggie Lindemann into doing an amateur porn video. He was attempting to derive the maximum power from his unearned fame, to demonstrate to himself what a big deal he is, and to obtain actual proof of this, which he could then show off to his buddies: “Look, man, here’s Maggie doing it for me.”

How often must this lesson be repeated? Anytime a guy gets a naked picture or sex video of a girl, he’s going to show it to his buddies. Everybody knows this by now and, although many states have passed laws against “revenge porn,” such laws won’t stop a guy from showing his girlfriend’s nude selfies to his buddies. Therefore . . .?

Don’t do it, ladies, and don’t associate with guys who expect you to do it.

Let us not pretend, however, that guys are not also being damaged by the perverse sewer of our hypersexualized culture.

True story: A guy I used to know had a life nearly anyone would envy. Grew up in a fine family with a big suburban home, swimming pool in the backyard, everything. His folks were respectable Christian people, and my friend was intelligent and talented. By the time he was 30, he had established himself in a professional career, married and had a home of his own. My wife and I used to visit my buddy and his wife at their house and marvel at their good fortune. We lost touch with them after a while, but after about 15 years had elapsed, I looked up my old friend and was shocked to learn what had happened. He and his wife had gotten into “swinging,” he got involved in drugs, so his marriage ended in divorce and he lost his house and his job. He became addicted to both crack cocaine and Internet porn, had a complete nervous breakdown and, at the time I looked him up again, my buddy was quite literally living in his mother’s basement, trying to put his life back together.

Blame Satan or Blame the Patriarchy?

Nobody is bulletproof. Nobody is immune. Start ignoring the rules of normal life — those old-fashioned “oppressive” rules — and you never know what kind of evil you’ll find waiting to ruin your life, wreck your mind and destroy your soul.

People who deny the reality of supernatural evil in the world often pretend to believe that there are no consequences to their own selfishness, while simultaneously promoting ideologies that scapegoat other people collectively for everything wrong in the world. Instead of blaming evil on Satan, feminists blame it on the patriarchy, and do not realize how their non-falsifiable belief system turns man-hating into a religion. Why bother seeking any deeper explanation of Carter Reynolds’ thuggish behavior, when you can recite jargon about “intimate partner abuse,” “rape culture” and “victim blaming”? Everybody sings in unison from the Feminist Hymnal, including an 18-year-old Texas girl named Hayley, who recently explained on Twitter:

“I can’t hang with straight men because I’m too clumsy to be around things as fragile as their masculinity.”

See how obvious this is? Your masculinity is fragile, “straight men,” as any teenager in Texas could tell you.

This same young Texan posted her “coming out” notice on Tumblr:

I’m gay. This isn’t a joke. The past year I have really started trying to figure out my sexuality. I was always afraid of my feelings for girls because of seeing how my family and other people started treating and thinking of my lesbian sister. I was bullied and harassed severely in the 6th grade because of rumors of me being a lesbian, and that experience really damaged me and made me want to be the farthest thing from it, thus I repressed the feelings more and more. However, I started dating guys but in every single relationship I was in except for one, I found myself completely repulsed by almost anything sexual in nature . . . Even being romantic felt like I had to force it because I felt like it wasn’t fair for the partners who felt strongly towards me. I was just unaroused and attracted to it at all, and some of those relationships ended for the exact reason that I couldn’t give guys what they wanted . . . and it made me feel guilty and like something was wrong with me, and that’s what people told me, that something must be broken in me. For a while I thought and identified as asexual because of this lack of attraction, but because of the pressure of the environment and society I’m from, I tried to smother every romantic or sexual attraction I actually had, almost totally exclusive with women. And in college I hope to explore my heart’s desires at last. The past few months I have done a lot of introspection and realized it wasn’t sex and romance I was repulsed by — it was that I was put back by it with MEN. I’ve tried to convince myself I’m straight. I’ve tried to keep it all to myself. But I don’t think I will ever be happy until I can be true to myself . . . and the people around me. I know many people will think down on me because of this now. But I cannot keep sacrificing my own wellbeing to try and please others. . . . Thank you for listening, and I hope that you will try to understand.
This is the only social media I’ve come out to and it will probably stay that way for a while. I haven’t specifically come out with any of my friends either, only talked to a few how I was questioning. I’m mortified of coming out to my parents. After YEARS they’ve finally accepted my sister for being an open lesbian, but still see her as lesser as a person . . . I’m their “star child” and they care a lot about reputation. I can’t help but feel that I’ve failed them. It’s just . . . it’s hard.

Teenagers now publish their “coming out” stories on Tumblr even though they’re “mortified” their parents will find out. This suggests that (a) parents generally have no idea what their kids are doing on the Internet, and (b) the kids take this for granted. And we might further speculate that (c) what kids are doing on the Internet has a lot to do with the increasingly weird sex culture.


Think about it: Kaitlyn at Pacific Lutheran confesses she started watching Internet porn when she was 12, which was also the same age at which Miriam Weeks/”Belle Knox” started watching Internet porn. Maggie Lindemann hooks up with Internet celebrity Carter Reynolds and he’s trying to make her do a porn video. It’s possible to perceive a clear pattern here and, when I think of my old buddy whose life was wrecked by “swinging,” drugs and porn addiction, perhaps you can see why I’m intrigued by how young Hayley explains her lesbianism.

She “started dating guys,” but found herself “completely repulsed by almost anything sexual in nature” because she “couldn’t give guys what they wanted.” And what did these guys want? She doesn’t say, but might we suspect that what they wanted was for her to enact their porn-inspired fantasies, to be an insatiable love-slave who just can’t get enough?

“Oh, yeah, baby! Do me like that!”

Rather than being grateful, as any man should be, for the pleasure of a woman’s companionship, these guys become obsessed with sex as a performance and are inevitably frustrated that female human beings they meet in real life are nothing like the pornographic fantasy women they’ve been watching in Internet videos since they were 12 years old.

The War Between the Sexes has degenerated into utter savagery, as guys and girls alike are burdened with impossible expectations of themselves and each other. Would you be surprised to learn that Hayley from Texas, the “star child” whose parents “care a lot about reputation,” has a history of eating disorders and self-harm?

I can’t express to you the deep, passionate level of hatred I used to feel about every little piece of myself physically and mentally. You’re talking about a girl who felt so s***ty about herself that she’d obsessively weigh in, starve for days, purposely throw up food, and run 1.8 miles every day to rid herself of imperfection.

She went through “hospitalization following hospitalization,” she explained. “No matter how much weight she lost, she still managed to hate herself even more.” She got better and realized, “You can’t constantly call yourself names and dwell at yourself in the mirror and expect yourself to be happy with yourself.”

Why? What causes this “deep, passionate level” of self-hatred in young women? Feminist scholars, rather predictably, blame the patriarchy, throwing around terms like “objectification” and “trauma” to describe how girls learn to hate their looks so much:

Dr. Erchull and Dr. Liss, along with alumna Stephanie Lichiello, recently had a paper titled Extending the Negative Consequences of Media Internalization and Self-Objectification to Dissociation and Self-Harm published in the October online first edition of the journal Sex Roles. Their findings suggest that self-harm and dissociation, both outcomes associated with the literature on trauma, are related to self-objectification and media internalization. They suggest that objectification could be considered a form of insidious trauma or microaggression.

However, if the overwhelming power of “male supremacy” explains this, why is it that self-hatred is producing so much self-hatred in girls now, at a time when female students comprise 57% of college enrollment and there is more real sexual equality in Western societies than at any previous time in history? And why are some girls driven to these self-destructive behaviors while the vast majority are not? Did I mention Haylee also suffered from trichotillomania? This is a rare “disorder characterized by the compulsive urge to pull out one’s hair,” according to Wikipedia, and “may be triggered by depression or stress.”

Sibling Rivalry and Non-Random Coincidence

While the “star child” Hayley was dealing with these various problems, what was her older lesbian sister doing? You can read a 2012 online petition in which a lesbian in Missouri describes how she made “friends online with” Hayley’s older sister and the two lovebirds then spent two years “talking every single day, texting, chatting, and Skyping for hours on end.” Parental opposition stood in the way of their meeting in person:

In fact, we’ve tried multiple times to visit one another, including my 18th birthday, my high-school graduation and my senior prom. But every time, the only issue we’ve come across is Amy’s father, who has vehemently opposed her traveling up to see me.

The father was the bad guy, you see, for not letting his daughter (17 at the time) run off to Missouri to be with her lesbian beloved, and this was posted in a petition at! Is anyone surprised that, while the elder sister was engaged in this kind of behavior, Hayley was showing symptoms of extreme stress? Around the same time her older sister made her online lesbian love connection, Haylee says she “was bullied and harassed severely in the 6th grade because of rumors of me being a lesbian.” Yet while she has “done a lot of introspection” about her own sexuality, Haylee doesn’t seem puzzled by the remarkable coincidence that, while less than 3 percent of U.S. women are lesbian or bisexual, both she and her sister identify as lesbian. Haylee was “completely repulsed . . . unaroused and attracted” by males, and this is entirely their fault: “I can’t hang with straight men because I’m too clumsy to be around things as fragile as their masculinity.”

Maybe “straight men” in Hayley’s hometown have some particular problem with “fragile . . . masculinity,” but is it not also possible that there is something particularly “fragile” about Hayley and her sister? Given the pattern we have seen, wouldn’t it make sense to ask if early exposure to pornography might have had something to do with this? Go back to 2009, when Hayley was in sixth grade being “bullied,” while her older sister, 14 or 15 at the time, was evidently trawling the Internet in search of lesbian love. Then remember what Kaitlyn wrote in her bisexual “coming out” notice: “I was twelve when I discovered porn.”

Human behavior follows patterns, and those who subscribe to the “born that way” theory of homosexuality can speculate about genetic factors as explaining why two sisters in a small Texas town would both become lesbians. My own speculative theories, while certainly not denying the possible influence of hereditary traits that manifest themselves as tendencies, would seek the cause in family dynamics and disruptive factors in normal childhood development. The problem with trying to discover the etiology of homosexuality is that social science has declared such inquiries off-limits in recent decades. Everyone now must simply accept homosexuality, and never are we supposed to scrutinize too closely these “coming out” narratives in an attempt to identify non-random factors in the LGBT equation. We must all applaud the pride parade or else be condemned as haters.

Robert Stacy McCain @rsmccain

Everybody’s got a letter in that acronym except ‘N’ for NORMAL.

“Pride goeth before destruction,” the Bible says, but I wasn’t thinking that way in 1979. No, I was thinking about rock-and-roll.

From The Other McCain:

Stacy McCain discusses the Faggot Frenzy over the SCOTUS Decision

A Prelude to Social Destruction

Posted on | June 27, 2015

By Stacy McCain

“Politics is downstream from culture,” Andrew Breitbart often said. This was why I spent Thursday writing 4,000 words — “Let’s Bring Back Guilt and Shame” — in preparation for the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage which, as anyone who had been paying attention could have predicted, was a 5-4 decision with Justice Kennedy as the decisive vote. What we may discern from reading Justice Kennedy’s ruling is the same thing we discern from reading vulgar expressions of “gay pride” on Tumblr blogs. In both instances, we are confronted by irrational sentiment that not only refuses to recognize the potential for harmful social consequences, but which further insists that opponents are motivated by ignorance and prejudice. The Obergefell decision is not so much a legal argument as it is an accusation of bigotry against American society, an indictment of a nation that imposed a “demeaning” stigma on homosexuals. The decision declares that “marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order” (p. 4) before proceeding to declare that this social order must be destroyed because . . . well, why exactly?

There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle . . .

(What principle? Never mind. Justice Kennedy’s on a roll now.)

. . . yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage . . .

(You see that, in Justice Kennedy’s enlightened mind, the “benefits” of marriage are supplied by government, rather than being intrinsic to the nature of marriage.)

. . . and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. . . .

(How dare you “consign” them to “instability,” you haters!)

It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society . . .

(They’re locked out of the institution — by haters!)

. . . for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage.

(My wife has “transcendent purposes” for me to take out the garbage.)

The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.

What can anyone say in reply to such a lecture, except to wonder how or why this alleged “inconsistency . . . is now manifest” in a way it was not manifest at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted and ratified by legislators who never so much as hinted any intention to alter the definition of marriage? Quite obviously, what is at the heart of this specious reasoning is a determination that gay people must be granted access, via marriage, to that “constellation of benefits” of which Justice Kennedy spoke. That is to say, insofar as the Welfare State doles out taxpayer dollars to straight people because of marriage, gay people must also be cut in for their share of the government-provided loot, and who cares what the larger consequences may be? We may expect, for example, that this will hasten the bankruptcy of Social Security as gay “widows” qualify for survivors benefits, but it is clear that Justice Kennedy would never pay heed to any such practical concern.

“The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. . . . The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”
Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting

Equality with a capital E and Progress with a capital P are the inspirational touchstones of Obergefell. The past is a museum full of obsolete prejudices, where ideas that “may long have seemed natural and just” are dismissed as inferior to the ideas of our Enlightened Arbiters of Social Justice, these robed judicial eminences who are authorized to lecture us about the central meaning of fundamental rights. We can read the Constitution the same as they can, but only they are endowed with the extraordinary insight necessary to find “manifest” there a “principle” which had hitherto escaped our feeble perception.

The quasi-religious devotion to Equality and Progress that animates Obergefell moved Justice Kennedy to a mood of poetic rapture that reaches its ecstatic climax in his conclusion:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

One imagines the pages being stained and stuck together after Justice Kennedy finished writing that paragraph. Then he smoked a cigarette, got dressed in a hurry, put a $100 bill on the night stand and left quietly, while the Constitution cried herself to sleep.

William Belcher @EdB_Ohio

@AceofSpadesHQ I’m amazed at the people swooning over the dreck as if they fully expect it in a SCOTUS opinion.

anthony kennedy writes opinions on gay sex like he was a Hallmark Card copywriter bucking for a raise @EdB_Ohio


View image on Twitter

About 20 years ago, when liberals began their push for gay marriage, it struck me as an absurd idea. I’m sure most other Americans felt the same way about it, and the social conservatives who took it seriously at the time seemed like hysterical alarmists. Certainly if anyone had told me, circa 1995, that we would reach this point so quickly, I would not have believed them, for I simply could not imagine that we would ever reach this point at all. Trusting in the basic common sense of the American people, I underestimated the persuasive power of the media and the entertainment industry, which have been playing the role of cheerleaders at the LGBT pep rally for so long. Also, I underestimated the extent to which the liberal gospel of Progress and Equality had taken root in the minds of people who, wishing to avoid serious thought about politics and social order, were content to go along with the crowd.

Conscientious people did not want to make themselves unpopular by resisting too loudly this lemming-herd stampede toward the cliff. If you do not wish gay people to be “condemned to live in loneliness” — note well Justice Kennedy’s accusatory implication that opponents are engaged in wanton cruelty — then you must Do Exactly What They Say and Give Them Exactly What They Demand. Thus we arrived at a 21st-century cultural Munich, where marriage was the Sudetenland.

Do you suspect that this will not be the totalitarians’ Final Demand? Well, you’re just a hateful homophobe, aren’t you?

What next? Ace of Spades ponders this briefly:

Now come the knock-on cases, where they ban federal funding of religious schools that don’t recognize gay marriage.

This is obvious enough, and there are many more equally obvious ramifications of Obergefell. The angry LGBT mob, full of destructive rage, will seize the whip they’ve been handed by the Supreme Court and employ it to inflict their sadistic revenge on America.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Robert Stacy McCain @rsmccain

Despite today’s Supreme Court ruling, heterosexuality is still legal, except on college campuses in California.

From The Other McCain:

Fairy Tales Turning into Leftist Homo Propaganda

Fairy Tales Fundamentally Transformed Into Homosexual Indoctrination

As part of the blitzkrieg campaign to impose acceptance of homosexuality, social engineers are really putting the fairy into fairy tale: Hulu is broadcasting a cartoon meant for children about a boy who rescues a prince and a princess but then chooses to marry the prince. Yes, the prince, the bearded guy in the photo below. This effort to teach children the joys of not only gay marriage, but also borderline pedophilia is simply reprehensible. It’s especially obscene to start in on this topic with preschoolers.

Now imagine a creepy pedophile saying the following in a soft voice – kids deserve stories and fairytales that represent the whole spectrum of human love and experience – and you’ve just experienced the HuffPo spin on the subject.

What’s next? A few sample possibilities: Cindarello: Cindarello is a young man who simply wants to wear women’s clothing and go to the ball to meet the prince. His wish is granted when his fairy godfather appears. Little Red Riding Crop: A little girl meets a wolfish dominatrix who teaches her that pain can also be pleasure. Jack Cuts Off His Beanstalk: A young boy relates his own DIY story on transgenderism. Pus in Bowels: A feline learns that a small infection is a small price to pay to experience love in a whole new way. Brainwashing children is an obsession with progressives. Corrupting them is an obsession with homosexuals. The progressive and homosexual agendas have merged.

On tips from Mr. Mentalo and J. – See more at:

Lesbians, Liars, and Lunatics

US Women Led by a Lesbian and a Lunatic

Posted on June 9, 2015

By: The Z Man

Imagine if the US men’s soccer team went into the World Cup led by a wife beater and a flamboyant homosexual. The news, of course, would be all about the wonderfulness of the homosexual, because they are our gods. We would know nothing about the other players, other than than the degree of wonderfulness they display while embracing the sodomite.

We know this because we have two good examples. In the NBA, Jason Collins, a bench player at the end of his career, announced he was gay. For the next twelve months ESPN was unwatchable because it was a 24×7 marathon of stories about the homosexual basketball player. Similarly, the college football player, Michael Sam, got hundreds of hours of air time, simply because he acted gay on TV. He even got a shot in the NFL.

The US Women’s soccer team is led by Megan Rapinoe. If you put her name into a Google machine you see the usual stuff about an athlete. This despite her best efforts to make money off of being a lesbian. Before the Olympics she all but went door to door telling people she liked muff. Yet, the news has no stories on the poor girl, other than the fact she is trying to win her first World Cup.

Of course, if anyone dares mention that Mx. Rapinoe is a dyke, they will be fired so you can’t blame the airheads in the media for leaving it alone. They are not terribly bright, but they know how the game is played. Mention Rapinoe is a lesbian and the SJW’s pounce on you demanding to know why you care about her sex life.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m fine with the silence on this women’s private life. I think this is proper. In fact, there should be a penalty on those who keep putting their business in the street. The absolute worst thing to happen in modern times is people sharing their private lives with strangers. Mx. Rapinoe’s private life is none of our business and she should keep it that way.

The point is, a homosexual male athlete means everyone all the time must talk about how wonderful it is that he likes the penis sampler at the club, while a female homosexual athlete means everyone better not notice – or else. I can’t help but feel sorry for the dykes. It seems that liking muff in modern America is the one unforgivable sin, whether you are a man or a woman.

Now, let’s look at the lunatic on the team, Hope Solo. Her biography reads like a cautionary tale told to parents about the dangers of letting your daughter play sports. “If she plays soccer, there is a 70% chance she will turn out to be white trash on a reality show.”

Solo has been arrested multiple times for things like beating up a minor, disorderly conduct and public drunkenness. If I were being charitable, I’d describe her as a handful and every man reading this would know exactly what I meant. In addition to being a handful, she is not the most gifted liar, despite working hard at it.

Every week, male athletes involved in drunken brawls, grand theft and domestic violence lose their careers. Ray Rice lost his career in the NFL and a multimillion dollar contract because he slapped his old lady in an elevator. Greg Hardy, another NFL player, remains out of work because of a domestic violence beef.

The ESPN article is the only thing you see about Solo from the media. They have decided that it is old news and there’s no reason for you chauvinistic cave dwellers to talk about it. Instead, her story will be a tale of redemption. Since we can’t talk about the lesbians and no one watches women’s soccer, the narrative will be Solo’s triumph over adversity!

This is where American women find themselves after a century of feminism. The role models for their daughters are lesbians and lunatics, but no one is allowed to mention that these women are lesbians and lunatics. They traded in one set of double standards for another set, the former being based in biology and the latter at odds with it.

From The Z BLog:

Radical Queers. Just another pawn in the Liberal game plan to Destroy America

The Homo Wars

Radicals latched onto the Civil Rights Movement. What better way to freak out the squares, like their parents, than to invite the blacks in for dinner? So the New Left jumped into the cause, not to help blacks, but to harass white people like their parents. At the heart of radicalism is a tantrum against biological reality. Eventually, we all become our parents and radicals rail against that by indulging in juvenile and dangerous political causes well into adulthood.

This round of radical lunacy started in the 1990’s with the disappointment that was Bill Clinton. The Progressives really thought he was going to be JFK 2.0 and when he was basically JFK 2.0, rather than the imaginary version of JFK, Progressives began to radicalize again. The result has been a war against normal Americans for the last two decades.

Unlike the last wave, this one has been a bit more diverse. Blacks have proven to be unreliable victims. Like the Soviet Union, it is hard to ignore the bodies stacking up. The near total absence of demonstrable discrimination was also a problem. Whites have been reordering their lives to accommodate the sensibilities of black people for a long time now. A new civil right movement was just not practical.

Instead, they went for homosexuals, sexual deviants, immigrants and single white women. Blacks, as a voting block, have been taken for granted by Progressives for a long time now so there’s no reason to cater to them, other than when they can be used as a cudgel. Blacks have become just another bit of furniture in the Progressive fun house, so the Cult could go after Hispanics and gays without fear of alienating blacks.

When building a coalition of bitter weirdos, the bitterest will always rise to the top. In the 60’s, the pasty-faced white kids in the student movements gave way to the bitter (and violent) weirdos of the black power movement. In the 90’s, the most bitter and deranged weirdos turned out to be the homosexuals. As a result, the Great Fag Wars have raged for close to two decades now.

Take a look at some recent skirmishes. Razib Khan gets hired and fired in one day by the NYTimes, allegedly for hanging out with people that say bad things about immigrants. The head of that lynch mob was a deranged homosexual working at the homosexualist site called Gawker. If McInnes is accurate, the Gawker guy just wanted to be an asshole.

Of course, the recent turmoil in Indiana, where very modest protections against predacious homosexuals were put in place, has been led by homosexual fanatics like Tim Cook, the fascist ruler of the MacCult. Homosexuals from around the country have been taking to the Internet, threatening anyone and everyone who supports protecting Christians from these rampaging mobs. ISIS has to be wondering why we care what they do to their Christians.

Even the rape hoax stuff on college campuses is being championed by homosexual activists. Rolling Stone is run by the flamboyant homosexual Jann Wenner. The homosexualist site Gawker got in on the act, defending what was clearly a fabricated story. The New Republic, run by the billionaire homosexual fascist Chris Hughes, was also on the case, trumpeting the veracity of the story, despite their history with the fabulist that wrote it.

Blacks, in the long run, turned out to be poor mascots for the Cult of Modern Liberalism. Government discrimination against blacks, however, was a real problem and overturning it was a good thing. Denying people full citizenship based solely on their ethnicity is no way to run a republic. The train load of other stuff that came along with overturning those laws may have been a disaster for the country, but it was right to overturn those laws.

No such dynamic exists here. This is a war on Christianity and a war on traditional Americans. There’s nothing that can be plucked from the tidal wave of sewage coming from the Cult that one can hold up as a benefit. It’s all filth and the people riding the wave are the worst elements of society, the deviants.

I have no predictions as to how this ends. The last Great Progressive Wave collapsed in an orgy of drug abuse and violence. This wave will end similarly. The last time, however, American society had huge storehouses of surplus. Today, we are showing the signs of exhaustion, with limited reserves to blunt the denouement of this wave. My sense is the great homo wars will not end well.

From Z Blog:

Freedom of Association

The Struggles of Conservative Inc.

The war on Christian pizza makers has the professional Right sorely vexed. I think most of their outrage is legitimate. They truly are offended by this latest assault on normal Americans. The fund raising by the pizza joint in Indiana suggests normal Americans are growing weary of the lunatics and their causes. Still, I think a part of what vexes the professional Right is their fear of stating the obvious conclusion.

That conclusion is you cannot have freedom of any sort without freedom of association. If you must get permission from the state to associate or disassociate from others, you have no freedom. The state may allow you some options, but everything you do must come with a permission slip. Otherwise, putting two people who hate one another in the same room ends up with blood on the walls.

Here’s a recent screed from National Review struggling to avoid stating the obvious.

Policies come to us with principles attached to them, and when debating public policy we should consider the principles not only of legislation that has passed but also of legislation that has been rejected. No one to my knowledge is discussing where the principles implied in the Left’s rejection of the RFRA lead. Responsible statecraft entails an examination of a principle’s logical conclusion. In the case of liberalism, the conclusions to which its principles lead help us see just how deeply opposed those principles are to the constitutional order we’ve inherited.

When the Left rejects the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it invites compelled speech. When photographers are forced under threat of fines to shoot weddings or religious services that they believe are immoral, the assumption is that we are sometimes legally bound to participate in certain kinds of speech, and the state becomes the arbiter of what that speech is in specific instances.

Well, no. Forcing someone to work for someone else is not forcing them speak. It is forcing them to participate. Put another way, it is compulsory association. The state is saying to the photographer, “We really don’t care about your opinions of these people. You must do what we say, act as we say or else.”

Of course, the reason Andrew Walker of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the guy who wrote the piece in question, must fetishize speech is he cannot mention association. To do so, to draw the obvious conclusion from the events in Indiana and elsewhere, would risk his job and career. Rand Paul almost saw his career come to end in 2012 because he dared utter this conclusion.

The reason, ostensibly, is that letting stores refuse service to homos would lead to stores not serving blacks. That has things exactly backwards. Separate public accommodations in the South were falling apart on their own. Basic economics makes such practices self-limiting and self-destructive. The reason Progressives pushed through laws against private discrimination was to eliminate private association.

It’s rather amazing how easily Americans were willing to surrender their liberty, but there it is. Now, there’s no reason to think things like Christianity, private clubs, fraternities, etc will hold up much longer. After all, if you cannot deny admissions based on your own peculiar criteria, why have an organization at all?

The thing I think is vexing to the professional Right is the mounting proof that they were wrong about the Left. They were convinced that the “other side” (as if there are only two sides) was acting in good faith, but just need convincing. Recent events show that to be nonsense, but Conservative Inc. can’t bring itself to admit it.

Which leads to my final point. When the Left rejects the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it invites the imposition of state-enforced morality. The Left requires obedience and punishes dissent. It insists that all citizens must, against their will, act only in a manner that liberalism judges to be accommodating and politic. Anyone acquainted with progressive thought knows that it is founded on unexamined assumptions, but seldom until now have we seen its unhinged hostility unmasked, as the Left reacts to our defense of a cherished freedom written into our Constitution.

There’s no evidence from Progressives that they see any of this as a flaw or even unintentional. Yes, they fully expect to impose their morality – at gunpoint if necessary – on the rest of us. That’s how political cults operate. Hell, it’s how Christianity operated for over 1,000 years. But, admitting this is the case would point out that Conservative Inc has been wrong for thirty years now.

From Z Blog:

In case You Haven’t Noticed? Shit done Got Real up in Here.

The Contrived Indiana RFRA Controversy and the Transition to Hard Tyranny

Only when totalitarians have consolidated control of the government can they use it to the full extent to impose their ideology. In the meantime, they rely on independent thugs, who engage in political violence and intimidation on an unofficial basis. Three examples are Nazi Brownshirts, Islamic terrorists in countries where Muslims have not yet achieved a majority, and Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana. The latter has incurred the wrath of liberals whipped into a frenzy over the contrived RFRA controversy, thanks to false information disseminated by the “mainstream” media for political purposes:

Memories Pizza in Walkerton, In., has found itself the target of intense online criticism after an ABC News affiliate falsely accused the family-owned business of denying all service to gays and lesbians, a claim that was soon repeated widely by reporters at national outlets.

Screeching pieces have been published

based on an ABC57 article, which was published late Tuesday night, that stated in its original headline, “RFRA: First Michiana business to publicly deny same-sex service.”

Like most everything liberals have to say relating to religious freedom and homosexuality, the headline was misleading:

[T]he story’s own reporting, by ABC57’s Alyssa Marino, states, “the O’Connor family said that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service.”

The pizzeria owners said, “they just don’t agree with gay marriages and wouldn’t cater them if asked to,” Marino reported.

Pizza is rarely served at weddings.

Rather than denying all service to gays and lesbians, the O’Connors say they just don’t want to participate in a ceremony that violates their religious convictions.

Even that stance is unacceptable to the mob of thugs cultural Marxists have mobilized.

The O’Connors were never asked to cater a homosexual parody of a wedding ceremony. Their opinion came to light when ABC57 went out searching for a business owner who holds the same opinion on marriage that virtually everyone in human history — including even Barack Obama — did until a few years ago.

A victim having been found, the mob attacked:

The nine-year-old pizzeria’s Yelp page, which had just two reviews earlier this week, has been flooded with a deluge of insults directed at the O’Connor family as well as several pornographic images of men engaged in sex acts with other men.

If only that were the extent of the malice. Jess Dooley, a girl’s golf coach at Concord High School in Elkhart, Indiana, took to Twitter to urge someone to burn down the pizzeria. The business wasforced to close:

Owner Kevin O’Connor said vitriol toward his restaurant was so intense it was closed until further notice. The eatery began receiving threatening phone calls and social media postings after revealing its support for the law earlier this week.

The law referred to is of course the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is essentially the same as a federal law signed by Bill Clinton and the law in 19 other states, including liberal Illinois, where State Senator Barack Obama voted in its favor (although Obama now officially regards the law as “unthinkable”).

Indiana’s law is utterly uncontroversial. However, we have reached the point in our deterioration into tyranny where fascists can mobilize a vicious mob on the thinnest pretext, thanks to eager media collaboration.

The O’Connors are currently in hiding, terrified for their safety. Until only recently, Americans would never have believed we could be reduced to this.

But maybe this won’t be a win for the fascists after all. If we still have any cultural will to live, there will come a backlash. Encouragingly, a Go Fund Me drive to raise money in support of Memories Pizza has already raised over $150,000.

You would never guess it from watching TV, but decent Americans still outnumber militant perverts and those who exploit them to attack Christianity and freedom.

Gay Swastika
Getting serious.

On tips from Petterssonp, Bodhisattva, Jester, Dean D, and Rob E.

From MB:

Why aren’t LGBTs Up in Arms Because muslims Won’t Bake Wedding Cakes for Homo’s?

Muslim Bakers Asked to Bake Gay Wedding Cake

Militant homosexuals have made a sport of using our tyrannically politically correct system to destroy Christian bakers who are not willing to betray their faith (example 1, example 2). The complicit media has even extended a variation this game to pizzerias. But neither the Gaystapo nor the governmedia has any interest in whether politically privileged Muslims would be willing to prepare a cake for a Sodomite parody of marriage. So it was left to Steven Crowder to find out:

Are you on this, gay militants? How about you, “mainstream” media? Discrimination is taking place, right in Dearborn, Michigan. Somebody needs to tell Eric Holder.

From MB:

Tyranny of Equality

The Tyranny of ‘Equality’

Posted on | April 1, 2015

When people claim to be oppressed and demand equality, what happens after they get it? Tim Carney explains the post-Windsor world:

On one side is the CEO of the world’s largest company, the president of the United States and a growing chunk of the Fortune 500. On the other side is a solo wedding photographer in New Mexico, a 70-year-old grandma florist in Washington and a few bakers.
One side wants the state to conscript the religious businesswomen and men into participating in ceremonies that violate their beliefs. The other side wants to make it possible for religious people to live their own lives according to their consciences. . . .
Tim Cook is the CEO of Apple, the largest corporation in the world. He opposes religious freedom laws, and paints them as a growing scourge. “There’s something very dangerous happening in states across the country,” his Washington Post op-ed darkly began, warning of “A wave of legislation” to protect religious liberty.
This is hokum. Religious Freedom Restoration Acts have existed on the state and federal level for decades. What’s new here — the “wave” that’s actually sweeping over the country — is an emboldened and litigious cultural Left, unsated by its recent culture war victories, trying now to conscript the defeated soldiers at gunpoint. . . .
After millennia of marriage being uncontroversially a union between one man and one woman, and after a decade of electorates in most states (and President Obama in 2008) upholding that traditional definition, the Left has used the courts to redefine the institution. People are fired for having taken the losing side. On college campuses, the current fights are about banning even the articulation of traditional views.

Read the whole thing. What has happened is that people forgot history — or, to be more precise, they never learned history, because our education system doesn’t teach history. In the 1950s and early ’60s, the civil-rights movement, led by Christian ministers like the Rev. Martin Luther King, built a broad biracial coalition that gained widespread support by appealing to America’s basic sense of fairness. However, after the great triumph of 1964 — “Freedom Summer” in Mississippi and the passage of the Civil Rights Act — the movement quickly fractured. In early 1965, radicals asserted their control of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC had led sit-in protests across the South) and whites were purged from the organization’s leadership. In 1966, Stokely Carmichael became SNCC chairman and, declaring that non-violence had been a tactic rather than a principle, raised the slogan “Black Power.” Allying themselves with anti-war radicals, SNCC protesters disrupted draft boards and in July 1967, Carmichael’s successor as SNCC chairman,H. Rap Brown, was arrested for inciting a riot in Cambridge, Maryland. By that time, radicals in Oakland, California, inspired by SNCC’s militancy, had formed the Black Panthers, openly espousing a Marxist-Leninist rhetoric of armed revolution.

Thus, in a span of about five years, the civil rights movement had gone from the idealism of MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech to the explicit advocacy of violent black nationalism. What began as a broad-based democratic movement for racial equality became instead a totalitarian cult of black supremacy, and this was surprising to everyone except a handful of conservatives who had studied history and could point to the example of the French Revolution as having followed a quite similar path of radicalism. Less than four years elapsed between the formation of the National Assembly in June 1789 to the execution of King Louis XVI in January 1793, and by June 1793, the bloody Reign of Terrorhad begun. By 1799, Napoleon was dictator of France.

“The modern Cult of Progress . . . has repeatedly afflicted humanity with enthusiastic schemes for political, social and economic change. Always these innovations require us first to destroy ‘hitherto existing society’ (to quote the Communist Manifesto), and to entrust our future to the control of elites. Always the result is the same. From the Reign of Terror in revolutionary France to the Bolshevik Terror in revolutionary Russia, from Kristallnacht in Germany to the ‘Great Leap Forward’ in China to the ‘Killing Fields’ in Cambodia, the path of ‘progress’ is a trail painted in blood, littered with the corpses of those murdered or starved to death for the sake of political theories.”
Robert Stacy McCain, Jan. 11

“Equality” is arguably the most dangerous word in the world. The deadly tyranny of Communism — which killed between 75 million and 100 million people in the 20th century — ought to have cured us of any illusions about this. Alas, people cannot learn lessons from a history they do not know, and the American public education system has deliberately fostered ignorance while promoting liberal mythology as “history,” and thus we are now Doomed Beyond All Hope of Redemption.

From The Other McCain:

LGBT Crazies go Crazy over Pizza

TV Reporter’s Cheap ‘Gotcha’ Story Incites Hate Mob Against Indiana Pizza Shop

Posted on | April 1, 2015

“RFRA: Michiana business wouldn’t cater a gay wedding.”
“Restaurant denies some services to same-sex couples.”

That’s how Alyssa Marino “reported” a story Tuesday on ABC affiliate WBND-TV in South Bend, Indiana, with the result that a firestorm of hatred came raining down on a pizza shop:

There were no complaints nor denials of service to anyone ever, but because of their religious beliefs, Memories Pizza stands in ruin and the family who owns it has had their lives threatened countless times. How did the O’Connor family, owners of Memories, find themselves in this situation? They were honest with a reporter in search of a story to fit the media’s narrative.
Alyssa Marino is a reporter with ABC 57 News in South Bend, Indiana. With her state in the center of a hurricane over religious freedom, Marino must’ve thought she’d had a coup – a devout Christian business owner willing to speak on camera about their religious beliefs and how it impacts the operations of that business.
The issue of gay marriage is not one that generally comes up when talking about a pizzeria. Neither is straight marriage, for that matter. Local pizza joints aren’t generally hotbeds of wedding receptions. Yet, Marino found herself wandering into Memories Pizza to get the unsuspecting owners to weigh in on an emotional issue which has never come up in the course of the business’s nearly 10 year existence.
When owner Crystal O’Connor told Marino, “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” she had to know she’d struck gold.

You know what would be awesome right now? A fresh hot slice of Indiana pizza, with pepperoni, mushrooms and FREEDOM!

Legalize sodomy, and next thing you know, it’s illegal to disapprove of sodomy. How long until taxpayer-funded compulsory sodomy?

At what point did Americans begin to believe they had a “right” not to be offended?

Liberals always demand “tolerance” until they get enough power to silence their opposition. Then dissent is banned as “hate speech.

In 2015, Democrats are calling in death threats to a pizza shop whose owner agrees with what was Barack Obama’s official position in 2008.

Democrats have succeeded in fostering violent hatred against Christians, capitalists, heterosexuals and fetuses.

(Hat-tip: Moe Lane on Twitter.) The pizza shop was forced to closeWednesday and the owner told Dana Loesch they might not re-openbecause of all the death threats. Ace of Spades:

Death threats are only publicized to the extent they can portray the left as sympathetic victims.
When the left threatens to murder political opponents, the media covers it up.

The Democrat-Media Complex has hyped this Indiana RFRA controversy into an LGBT lynch-mob scenario that compares to nothing I’ve seen since the L.A. riots in 1992. Some people seem to have lost their minds over this:

A Concord High School coach has been suspended after she tweeted about arson in relation to a Walkerton pizzeria whose owners told the media they agree with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Jess Dooley, who is the head coach of the girls golf program and also an assistant coach with the softball and girls basketball programs, took to Twitter Wednesday, April 1, to voice her opinion about the RFRA.
She was adding to the conversation about Memories Pizza, a Walkerton restaurant whose owners announced in a television news segment that they would not cater gay weddings.
Her tweet read: “Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?”

Hey, arson advocacy, public education, to-MAY-to, to-MAH-to, right?


People: Calm down. If your TV is making you crazy, turn off the TV. If the Internet is making you crazy, get off the Internet.

Except this blog, of course.

This blog will continue providing all the high-intensity craziness anybody could ever need. Because we know you need it.

From The Other McCain:

“Diversity” is Turning Into Slavery

How to make slaves to the state in the name of “diversity”


You’ve heard it all by now. Bakers are being forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, photographers are being forced to participate in gay weddings, chapels are being forced to officiate gay weddings, etc. And it’s all being done in the name of “equality.” Liberty, of course, is never mentioned.

This is not a religious issue, it’s a liberty issue.

There are those who would make this a religious issue but I believe that it is both short-sighted and unprincipled to do so. Yes, it’s true that most of the cases that we’ve had thus far have involved religion and religious objection, but it is certainly possible to have a case that doesn’t involve religion. Laws that exclusively exempt religious people from following laws that others must follow, do nothing but give religious people special privileges. This is both unconstitutional and inconsistent. There are any number of reasons that a proprietor might refuse service to a customer — and they don’t all involve religion.

But because we have made it about religion, we now have a false argument that has created a division between religious people and non-religious people. This doesn’t have to be the case. After all, at the heart of all of this, it’s not about religion, it’s about liberty. If we would all stay principled, we can avoid problems like this in the future.

Many have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a right is.

There are those who would say that customers have a right to buy something. And this is absolutely true! But here’s the distinction: They don’t have the right to force someone to sell them something. Gay people, straight people, religious people, non-religious people, rich people, poor people and any other group of people have the right, in the United States of America, to purchase a cake. They don’t, however, have the right to force someone to bake them a cake. This should be obvious.

Forcing people to work against their will is slavery.

There is no other way to describe it. The reason they might not want to do the work is utterly irrelevant. If a baker is forced to bake a cake, or a photographer is forced to take pictures, or a plumber is forced to unclog a drain or a farmer is forced to harvest his crops or if any other person is forced to perform labor against his will, it is slavery plain and simple. You can pretend that it isn’t. You can try to justify it by using words like “equality” or “fairness.” You can even demonize the opposition with ad hominem attacks and demagoguery. But the fact will remain, forcing people to work against their will is slavery. And it’s immoral.

Business owners have first amendment rights too.

The typical response to this is always something to the effect of: “if you advertise a service or product, you must be able to provide it with no exceptions.” But this is ludicrous on it’s face. A person does not give up his first amendment rights just because he started a business. Advertising for a business is not the same thing as entering into a contract. I see Lexus ads all the time but I can guarantee you that the Lexus dealership will not give me a Lexus for the amount of money in my bank account. I am ineligible to purchase a Lexus. I am not a potential customer even though they advertised to me as if I was one. “Yeah! But not having enough money is different!” Why is it different? If you have no *principled* response as to why it’s different, then you have no good argument. Furthermore, as I’ve already stated, a business owner might have any number of reasons to refuse service to a potential customer: Lack of money, unruly behavior, difficult delivery logistics, lack of customer license, product or service disputes, age, appearance, etc. It would be a ridiculous fool’s errand to try to determine which of these things should be “illegal” and which shouldn’t be.

We must remain consistent.

A potential response to the above argument is to suggest that all of the other reasons listed for refusing service directly affect the bottom line of the business and, therefore, should be permitted. But, again, not only is this not true, there are plenty of examples that parallel quite nicely with the current controversy. For example, should the gay owner of a community meeting facility be forced to rent it out to, say, The Westboro cult? Obviously not. Should a Christian web developer be forced by the government to design a pornographic website? The vast majority of people would rightly say “no” (remember, this is an analogy, not a comparison). But if they are to remain consistent, those who use the old “If you advertise, there must be no exceptions” argument, must argue that a developer should be forced to design a pornographic web site. These hypothetical scenarios and the current controversy all involve a refusal of service based on (dare I use the phrase) conscientious objection. These businesses should reserve the right to refuse service if they so choose.

Who gets to decide what kind of objection is acceptable?

Whenever analogies like the one above are used, the response often meanders around to the notion that only certain types of objection should be allowed or that we should have certain “protected classes.” In other words, we should define when a business can refuse service and when it can’t. But is that really what we want? Do we really want an all-powerful government determining the things that are acceptable and things that aren’t? Who wins? The people with the most lobbyists? The largest special interest group? Similarly, do we really want the government defining identity groups and then determining which of them should have special rights? Of course not! But that’s exactly what would be (and is) happening.

Free people should be able to enter into contracts with one another.

Rarely have I heard anyone disagree with the notion that people should be able to enter (or not enter) into contracts freely. When a customer purchases something from a business, the two entities have entered into a private contract. The terms of that contract are nobody else’s business. Similarly, the reasons one might choose not to enter into a contract are also nobody else’s business. This is not a hard concept. Yet, for some reason, this principle goes out the window when the feelings of a member of a so-called victim class are on the line.

As usual, liberty is the solution.

You know, I would complain all day if a company didn’t serve me for some petty reason. I would blog about it. I would alert the media. I would protest. I would call for boycotts, etc. But here’s what I would not do: I would not expect (or want) the government to coerce that business into serving me. After all, I’m free to shop somewhere else. I’m free to start my own business and do what I please with it. I’m free to never interact with the business that rejected me. I’m free to live my life as I see fit. And really, that’s the beauty of liberty. All people are free to make their own decisions. No one owns anyone. No one’s identity is defined by bureaucrats. No one is forced to do something they don’t want to do. Yes, within liberty, someone’s feelings might get hurt but that’s life. Yes, within liberty, there will be people who behave badly. But I would take that liberty over an authoritarian government any day.

From Poor Richard:

Christians Will Be forced to Take a Stand

Two Years Later, You’ll Still Be Made to Care

By Erick Erickson

In the last twenty-four hours, much of the mainstream media has shown itself perfectly willing to serve as agents of Satan (or should I use Moloch to make you feel better?). Most of the news anchors, reporters, and opinion writers of the press are perfectly fine forcing you to violate your conscience as long as they do not have to.

They have suddenly discovered Jesus dined with sinners. They just ignore that he said “go and sin no more.” There is no evidence Jesus baked a cake to celebrate sin, but the media wants you to think he did. Just pay no attention to the guy in the Bible who spoke the most about hell fire. Oh wait, that would be the very same Jesus.

Two years ago this week, I coined the phrase “you will be made to care.” The media have long served to push along the leftwing agenda. Their reporting on Indiana is a greater mythological fiction than how they view Jesus. In light of the press’s advocacy, not reporting, in the last twenty-four hours in defense of hypothetical gays shut out of hypothetical businesses, it is worth revisiting the genesis of “You Will Be Made to Care.”

First, you are not loving your neighbor if you are cool with them going to hell. Do you want to go to hell? No? Well then how are you loving your neighbor as yourself if you’re cool with him going to hell? Leading people to Christ requires leading them to ask Christ to forgive them of their sins. It requires a deeper understanding of what is a sin. The Bible is clear. Same sex sexual relations is a sin, as is lying, greed, gluttony, adultery, etc. — no more or less worse than any other sin — and Christ himself is clear that marriage is between one man and one woman.

My church does not treat marriage as a sacrament, but it would be a sin to alter that which God himself ordained and established as an institution. Active sin without repenting, and without even feeling the need to repent, should be a big red flag on anyone’s salvation.

Gay rights advocates on the steady march toward and past gay marriage will make you care. They will not give you room to sit on the fence.

Tim Keller got a lot of heat two years ago for saying that “you can believe homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage should be legal.” He was not talking about himself. He was talking about the compromise many young evangelicals are making.

Some, though, are going the next step to “I. Do. Not. Care.”

The left will allow no fence sitting. You may not believe me. You may think me hyperbolic. But the history of the world shows this. Events ultimately come to a head. They boil to their essence. And at that point you must choose.

That is why so many Christians are fighting. Because we see in Europe and Canada what will happen here. Christianity is a religion of the city square. Christ compels us to “go forth and teach.” It is the Great Commission. We cannot go forth and teach when the left bars us from the town square.

Many people say we should have legal gay marriage, but not have religious gay marriage. The left will not honor the distinction. Look to Canada. Preachers can be brought up for hate crimes charges merely for discussing passages of the Bible that deal with same sex sexual relations. You may not care that it is a sin, but the world surely does. Look at Louie Giglio, who could not honor the President at his inauguration because of his orthodox Christian beliefs on this subject.

In short, you may choose not to care and in so doing sit on the sidelines or give aid and comfort to the open minded and tolerant who want gay marriage so everyone can have equal rights.

But the world will one day make you care. Your church, should it open its doors to all, but refuse to perform a same sex wedding, will be accused of discrimination. In some places, the church will be forced to stop performing weddings. Many churches will lose their tax exempt status. The costs of sharing the gospel will go up.

Already Christians are being harassed by fellow American citizens for not wanting to participate in a gay marriage.

The time will come, more quickly than you can imagine, when you will be made to care.

We are not using the state to enforce the commands of Scripture. We are using the state to protect our ability to preach the scripture under the first amendment. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution that it did not create, but that God himself created, the state can compel and coerce the church to honor that definition or sit on the sidelines and shut up.

A Christian on the sidelines is a Christian not going forth. You can be a sincere Christian and support the idea of gay marriage. But you would also be foolish to ignore what is going to happen to the church once the state decides something is a matter of equal protection. You can dismiss me now, but you are ignoring what’s already happening.

Keep in mind as well that many of those who you may look to for reassurance that I’m wrong are hostile to the church already and will not be on the side of the church as the equal protection arguments against it grow.

The state did not create marriage and it should not now exert the power to change the definition of that which it did not create. Those of you who are Christians who support gay marriage will one day have Archbishop Chaput burning in your ears. He said that evil peddles tolerance until it is dominant then seeks to silence good. That’s why Christians fight on this issue. It is not to force themselves on others, but to protect themselves from others being forced on them.

From Redstate: