Month Archives: April 2021

FRC’s Top 7 Trending Items (Week of April 25)

by Family Research Council

April 30, 2021

Here are “The 7” top trending items at FRC over the past seven days:

1. Update: A Word of Warming on the Border Crisis

It’s been blamed for everything, so it makes sense that if the White House needs a scapegoat on immigration, global warming would fit the bill! America’s supposed border czar, Vice President Kamala Harris, blamed the cause of the surge at the border not on Joe Biden’s ridiculous open-borders policy, but on the environment.

2. Update: Red States Get Seat Revenge in Census

There’s more than one way to get good government: move to it! According to the latest Census data, that’s what a massive number of Americans who are sick of higher taxes, lockdowns, and regulations are doing. Many are moving from states like California and New York, to freer, cheaper states like Texas.

3. Blog: Big Money Is Driving the Transgender Trend

The children’s section in Barnes & Noble recently featured a display table of books written by or about “notable women.” Included in the display is the book I Am Jazz. Author Jazz Jennings is a transgender teen (boy) who authored a picture book to explain to preschool age children that their gender identity may not match their biological sex.

4. Blog: Texas Takes a Stand for Religious Belief

Liberal states have been attempting to demand total adherence to their ideology for a while now. The Left is no longer interested in co-existing, but rather in demanding every person adheres to their views on sexuality and marriage. The latest target? Texas. But California should know better than to mess with Texas. The Lone Star State is fighting back.

5. Washington Watch: Claire Culwell Emphasizes the Importance of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act

Claire Culwell, twin abortion survivor, joined Tony Perkins to discuss the importance of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. Check out Claire’s new book, Survivor: An Abortion Survivor’s Surprising Story of Choosing Forgiveness and Finding Redemption.

6. Washington Watch: Michael Burgess, Ron Johnson, Roy Blunt, Jerry Boykin

Tony was joined by Michael Burgess, U.S. Representative for Texas, on President Biden’s address to Congress and Senator Tim Scott’s (R-S.C.) response. Ron Johnson, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, discussed his assessment of foreign policy in the first 100 days of the Biden administration. Roy Blunt, U.S. Senator from Missouri, examined President Biden’s domestic agenda. And, Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, FRC’s Executive Vice President and former commander of the U.S. Army’s Delta Force, broke down President Biden’s address to Congress.

7. Pray Vote Stand Broadcast: Mike Pompeo & Dr. Ben Carson Reflect on Biden’s First 100 Days

President Joe Biden has now been in office for over 100 days. Tony Perkins, Mike Pompeo, Dr. Ben Carson, and Michele Bachmann reflect on Biden’s 100 days and the direction this White House is driving America’s policies, at home and abroad.

6 Times the Supreme Court Has Ruled Against California Church Restrictions

by Kaitlyn Shepherd

April 29, 2021

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in a case challenging restrictions California imposed on houses of worship due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Monday’s order marks the sixth time that the Supreme Court has ruled against unfair restrictions that treated California churches more strictly than secular businesses.

For months, California churches faced particularly complicated and onerous restrictions that limited church attendance and inhibited religious exercise. In multiple cases, churches and pastors faced fines or the threat of imprisonment for holding indoor worship services. However, following Justice Barrett’s appointment to the Supreme Court in October 2020, California churches have started to experience relief. As of April 23, 2021, California’s guidance for houses of worship states that “location and capacity limits on places of worship are not mandatory but are strongly recommended. Additionally, the restrictions on indoor singing and chanting are recommended only.”

The Supreme Court’s willingness to defend religious liberty is a welcome development. Because of the Court’s guidance on this issue, more and more states are relaxing their worship restrictions. As of April 26, 2021, 41 states impose no restrictions on in-person indoor worship. Only nine states and the District of Columbia still impose a percentage-based limit on indoor worship. D.C. is the last remaining jurisdiction that imposes both a percentage limit and a numerical cap on the number of people who can congregate for indoor worship services. However, these restrictions were enjoined by court order in March 2021, and the D.C. government has announced it will remove the numerical cap beginning May 1, 2021.

What follows is a timeline of the six times the U.S. Supreme Court has issued opinions or orders upholding the rights of churches against California’s COVID-19 restrictions.

1. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom

On February 5, 2021, the Supreme Court enjoined California’s total ban on indoor worship in Tier 1 counties (i.e., those where the risk of COVID-19 transmission was said to be widespread). The Court’s decision allowed churches in these counties to reopen at 25 percent capacity but left the state’s ban on indoor singing and chanting in place. In a separate statement, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, noted that “California has openly imposed more stringent regulations on religious institutions than on many businesses.”

2. Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom

On the same day, the Supreme Court partially granted an injunction that prevented California from enforcing its total ban on indoor worship services against Harvest Rock Church while the case was being resolved in the lower courts. The decision allowed Harvest Rock and other churches in Tier 1 counties to reopen at 25 percent capacity, but it kept California’s ban on indoor singing and chanting in place. Although they joined the majority’s order, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch stated that they would have granted the injunction against the capacity limits and the ban on singing and chanting as well.

3. Gish v. Newsom

On February 8, 2021, the Supreme Court vacated a California district court’s dismissal of a case that challenged various state and local orders banning indoor worship services. The Supreme Court directed the lower court to reconsider the case in light of its recent South Bay decision.

4. Gateway City Church v. Newsom

On February 26, 2021, the Supreme Court granted an injunction that prevented enforcement of California’s restrictions against Gateway City Church. Noting that the “outcome [was] clearly dictated by [its] decision in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom,” the Court admonished the lower court, saying its “failure to grant relief was erroneous.”

5. Tandon v. Newsom

On April 9, 2021, the Supreme Court granted another injunction against California’s restrictions. This time, the Court addressed California’s requirement that at-home religious gatherings could not contain more than three separate households. In its opinion, the Court emphasized that “government regulations are not neutral and generally applicable … whenever they treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise.” The Court added that some secular activities being treated worse than religious ones is not a defense. It also stressed that the government bears the burden of showing “that measures less restrictive of the First Amendment activity could not address its interest in reducing the spread of COVID.” Because California “treat[ed] some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise” and the lower court did not find that religious activities posed more of a threat than the secular activities, the Court found that the “[a]pplicants [were] likely to succeed on the merits of their free exercise claim” and that an injunction was warranted.                                                                           

6. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom

On April 26, 2021, the Supreme Court returned to South Bay United Pentecostal Church’s case. The Court vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its decision in Tandon v. Newsom.

It is unfortunate to have seen so much discrimination against religious gatherings over the past year. For a full list of such instances, see here. May we continue to work and pray toward the protection of our freedom to gather as believers and live out our faith during this time.

The Staggering Reach of Billionaire Transgender Activists

by Lisa

April 29, 2021

This is part 2 of a 3-part series. Read part 1.

The first billionaire we have to thank for pushing incessant trans propaganda on our children is a man named James Pritzker. Pritzker came out as transgender in his 60s and now goes by the name Jennifer. The Pritzker family has been on the Forbes magazine Top 10 list of “America’s Richest Families” since the list began in 1982. The Pritzkers founded the Hyatt Hotel chain. They also own an airline, a cruise line, and a tobacco company (which they sold in 2006 for $3.5 billion). The Pritzkers sold their largest holding company (with 60 corporations) in 2010 to Berkshire Hathaway for $4.5 billion. But it’s the medical industrial complex where the Pritzkers have staked a lot of their current investments

After Pritzker announced he was a trans woman, he donated $6.5 million to the Program in Human Sexuality at the University of Minnesota and just under $6 million to the Palm Center (an LGBTQ think tank to study trans people in the military). He donated $2 million to install the world’s first “Chair of Trans Studies” at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, and he donated another $1 million to Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago for a Gender and Sex Development Program.

Pritzker, along with fellow trans-identifying billionaire Martin Rothblatt (who now goes by Martine) began throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at both cultural and educational organizations around the globe on the condition that those groups would, in turn, indoctrinate people with Money’s ideas on gender identity.   

Way back in the ‘90s, Rothblatt hired three trans activist lawyers to create an “international, legal framework for the cultural acceptance of sexual identities not embodied in biological reality.” In other words, what we are watching unfold in our country right now has been in the works for decades. Boys being allowed to compete in girls’ sports and take away their scholarships was conceived long ago with the legal framework being laid long before LGB ever recognized the T.  

But the trans agenda coming from the billionaire boys’ club doesn’t end with laws that embolden people who swap out one gender for another. The mission that Pritzker and Rothblatt have embarked on is far greater.

Rothblatt used to work for NASA, and he is the founder of Sirius Satellite Radio (worth $26 billion). He also founded the pharmaceutical company United Therapeutics ($4.5 billion). United Therapeutics is the world’s largest cloner of pigs. In fact, Rothblatt wrote his doctoral dissertation on xenotransplantation which is the transplantation of living cells, organs, or tissues from one species to another. (Can you see where this is going yet?)

Rothblatt doesn’t just identify as transgender; he also identifies as transhuman.

Rothblatt’s Terasem Foundation seeks to promote technological immortality via mind uploading and nanotechnology. The four pillars of Terasem include: 1) Life is purposeful; 2) Death is optional; 3) God is technological; 4) Love is essential.

Rothblatt believes humans are capable of living forever and has created an organization dedicated to extending human life through cryogenics and cyber consciousness. His website Lifenaut allows people to save a “digital back-up” of both their mind and genetic code. He even commissioned a humanoid robot to be made using his wife as the model. This robot has made many speaking appearances and been interviewed by numerous newspapers, including The New York Times.  

In the Journal of Evolution and Technology (Vol. 18, May 2008), Rothblatt wrote an article called “Are we Transbemans Yet?” He identifies a “beme” as a unit of someone’s character or nature that behaves like a gene but is not bound to a physical location. Under the section of the article entitled “Reinventing Our Species” Rothblatt says, “We can replicate life without DNA…while it is true that without DNA there will be no flesh, that does not mean that there will be no self. Expressing the bemes of our consciousness in a computer substrate is still an expression of us.” He goes on to say, “Just as human DNA gives rise to humans, human BNA gives rise to bemans.” He talks about new kinds of bodies we will soon have and new kinds of laws that will be needed as a result.

Rothblatt says there is a direct correlation between the acceptance of a person’s right to alter their gender and the acceptance of a person’s right to become transhuman (or transbeman). He says what we need is a total reimagining of what it means to be human.

In other words, transgenderism is only the tip of a much larger iceberg.  

Now numerous LGBTQ organizations funded by the billionaire class are insisting on new public school curriculum that will spread their ideology to children in grades K-12. It began with requiring schools to teach “the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people” in history textbooks. One of the first states to adopt this was Illinois where James Pritzker’s cousin, Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker, signed it into law.

New teaching at the K-12 level will be far more extreme. The California Department of Education has a plan to teach kindergarteners that there are 15 different genders to choose from. Because insane ideas such as these are already being taught in parts of Europe, we now have elementary schools reporting a skyrocketing rate of students seeking to transition. One teacher in a British school revealed she knows of 17 students in the process of switching genders. She claims many of them were vulnerable kids with autism or mental health issues who were tricked into believing they were born the wrong sex.

You see, if people like Pritzker and Rothblatt can confuse a child about gender before he or she hits puberty, it means greater financial gains for them. Because both men have a stake in the trans-medical industrial complex, if they can confuse children when they are very young (elementary school age), they can profit off puberty blockers in addition to life-long hormone treatments and countless surgeries at the gender clinics they’re invested in.

Remember, a single trans customer will pay for many surgeries over a lifetime (vaginoplasties, facial feminizations, vocal cord reconstructions, breast implants, Adam’s apple shavings, even “womb transplants” for men). This all adds up to big bucks in these billionaire bank accounts.

Once Planned Parenthood saw how much money there was to be made in the trans medical business, they too rushed in to provide people with cross-sex hormones under what they call “gender affirming therapy.” They are now the second largest provider of this service.

The entire trans industry works like this: First, create a false problem (confuse kids through teaching them about gender identity). Then introduce a solution to the false problem (come fix your problems at one of our gender clinics where you’ll be a life-long customer).

The billionaire boys’ club knew they needed to brainwash the masses to accept the new gender ideology in order for their business plan to work. Several key changes in the cultural lexicon were first necessary in order to shift people’s thinking at a subconscious level. To start, the word “transexual” had to be done away with so people wouldn’t associate the trans movement with sex (even though there is most definitely an association). Many so-called “trans men” are males who have a bizarre sexual fetish called “autogynephilia.” Autogynephilia is the objectification of women to the point of wanting to embody a female oneself. (See Dr. Ray Blanchard’s research for more on this.)

Both Pritzker and Rothblatt appear to meet the standard definition of an autogynephiliac: a man who enjoys cross-dressing so much that he develops a sexual fetish around it. In the past decade, there has been a massive, concerted effort by trans activists to normalize this fetish by taking it public. But the word “transexual” was conveniently replaced with the more respectable sounding “transgender”—a word that inherently implies a person has no choice in what “gender identity” they become. They were simply “assigned the wrong gender” at birth.  

Altering language this way is a classic John Money tactic. Money was the person responsible for shifting everyone away from using the term “sexual preference” to the term “sexual orientation.” To have a sexual preference implies a person has a say in who they desire to have sex with. A sexual orientation, on the other hand, implies the person was born with those desires and they, therefore, remain totally out of their control. (Can you see why a pedophile might prefer option B?)     

(It should be noted that the subject of “gender identity” is not the only arena where Money’s language tactics are used. The Scientific American recently announced they would no longer be using the words “climate change” but would instead substitute the term “climate emergency.” Other publications rushed to follow their lead.)  

Read part 3.

When It Comes to Federal Abortion Funding, Biden Is the All-Time King

by Connor Semelsberger, MPP

April 28, 2021

President Biden has allowed more taxpayer funding to be used for abortions or by abortion businesses then any president before him in their first 100 days. So far, FRC has tracked down almost $480 billion under the Biden administration that can be used to subsidize abortion and abortion businesses. It is unlikely that all of this funding will in fact be used to fund abortion. However, these funds expressly exclude existing prohibitions on abortion funding, allowing what could be for the first time in decades direct taxpayer funding for elective abortions.

Since 1973 when Congress passed the Helms Amendment (the first congressional prohibition on taxpayer funds which specifically prohibits foreign assistance funds from paying for abortion overseas), there has been a longstanding bipartisan agreement that the federal government should not subsidize the practice of abortion. In the 48 years since then, the federal government has taken further actions to directly prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion and health plans that cover elective abortion domestically and abroad.

The first breach of this longstanding consensus was the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010. The ACA was the largest breach of this consensus as it directly bypasses current restrictions on abortion funding. But even President Obama, who also repealed the Mexico City Policy and subsidized employer health plans that cover abortion as a response to the 2008 recession, did not subsidize the abortion industry to this degree this soon into his presidency.

President Obama did repeal President Bush’s Mexico City policy, which prohibits family planning funds from going to international organizations that commit abortions during his first months in office. However, the expanded version of the Mexico City Policy put in place by President Trump which Biden repealed on January 28 covered nearly $8 billion in global health funds, which freed up a far greater amount of funding for international abortion businesses then Obama did in 2009.

The $1.9 trillion COVID-19 response package that President Biden signed on March 11 is where the vast majority of the funds for abortion and abortion businesses comes from. And in that package, Biden not only expanded upon President Obama’s policies that subsidize abortion but went to far greater lengths to include program funding that lacks any substantive prohibitions on abortion funding.

President Obama signed a stimulus package early in his first term that would cover 65 percent of Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) health plans for the newly unemployed to remain on their employer sponsored health plans, many of which cover elective abortions. This subsidy was extended into May 2010, so the overall costs were not determined, but initial cost estimates came in at $24.7 billion. Biden likewise approved a COBRA health subsidy as part of his COVID relief package, but his subsidy went further to cover the full 100 percent of COBRA health plans, which was estimated to cost $35.095 billion.

Obama cemented his legacy with his signature health care victory in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This law created permanent subsidies for health plans that cover abortion, to the tune of $13 billion in 2020. While the ACA was signed into law on March 23, 2010, it was not fully implemented until 2014—well into Obama’s second term. Biden, however, took early advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic to dramatically expand these tax subsidies that fund ACA plans that cover abortion. These expanded ACA subsidies are estimated to cost $45.624 billion.

The largest source of Biden’s funding that can be used for abortions is the $350 billion in funds for state and local governments to respond to the COVID-19 public health emergency or its negative economic impacts, without a single reference to prohibiting the use for abortion or abortion businesses. While the funds must be used under the general requirement of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has already been made clear by the abortion industry that they are treating abortion as both a health and economic response to the pandemic. In 2019, New York City created its own abortion fund with local dollars, and now with billions being sent out to states with minimal guardrails, many other cities and states could follow suit—all on the backs of federal taxpayers. We may never know how much of these state bailouts go to line the pockets of the abortion industry, but we do know that the Biden administration left the door wide open for these funds to do just that.

Additionally, the Biden administration has directly ignored the congressional intent of the Paycheck Protection Program to exclude Planned Parenthood from being eligible. Instead, since taking office, his administration has already approved four new loans totaling $6.7 million for various Planned Parenthood affiliates. A direct line of federal funding for Planned Parenthood to use on salaries, health benefits, and equipment in his first 100 days is something President Obama could have only dreamed about.

Tragically, the use of taxpayer funds for abortion will not stop here as President Biden has already taken several actions to further subsidize the abortion industry. The Department of Health and Human Services has already proposed new regulations that would once again send millions of Title X Family Planning Funds to abortion businesses, with many more actions to promote abortion underway.

President Biden has come into office at an unprecedented time in history, one in which the country is facing a global pandemic and Americans appear more divided then ever. There are few more unifying policies then prohibitions on direct taxpayer funding of abortion, a policy that has garnered a majority support from Americans for years. Instead of maintaining these unifying policies that he himself has supported as a senator, Joe Biden is cementing himself as the largest financial supporter of the abortion industry that has ever occupied 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Texas Takes a Stand for Religious Belief

by Katherine Beck Johnson

April 28, 2021

Liberal states have been attempting to demand total adherence to their ideology for a while now. The Left is no longer interested in co-existing, but rather in demanding every person adheres to their views on sexuality and marriage. The latest target? Texas. But California should know better than to mess with Texas. The Lone Star State is fighting back.

This case arose from the following string of events: California banned state-funded or state-sponsored travel to Texas. Why? Because Texas respects the religious beliefs of those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman and that a mother and father is best for children. Texas acknowledges the religious freedom of faith-based child welfare providers within its own border. California is so bothered by Texas allowing its own citizens to freely live out their faith that they have decided that nobody can travel there if their travel is being sponsored by the state. It’s unclear if California would allow any state-funded travel to China, where an actual genocide is occurring. Yet, California is taking a hard stance again Christians living out their faith in Texas.

Texas went straight to the Supreme Court to file a complaint against California’s unconstitutional action. Texas was not alone, as 19 other states joined an amicus in support of Texas standing up to the demands of the woke. While the Supreme Court denied what is known as a “bill of complaint” earlier this week, Texas did not fully lose the case. The Court’s denial simply means that Texas needs to go through the lower courts first, as the Supreme Court did not have the proper jurisdiction at the moment—a point with which Justices Alito and Thomas disagreed. No justice commented on the merits of the case, but Alito and Thomas would have accepted the case without it working its way through lower courts.

For now, Texas lives to fight on another day, and we can expect to see this case and the issue it deals with arise again in the future.

Thinking Biblically About Religious Freedom

by David Closson

April 28, 2021

On “Worldview Wednesday,” we feature an article that addresses a pressing cultural, political, or theological issue. The goal of this blog series is to help Christians think about these issues from a biblical worldview. Read our previous posts on Unity, Safety“Christian Nationalism”LoveCourageForgivenessthe Resurrection and the Social GospelLoyalty, and Identity.

Last week, Montana joined 21 other states in passing legislation that requires the government to have a compelling reason for violating its citizens’ sincerely-held religious beliefs. Montana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)—like the federal version passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1993—says that when the government must restrict religious expression, it may only do so using the least restrictive means possible.

Lawmakers in Montana, including Gov. Greg Gianforte, were criticized for approving the legislation. This is not surprising; recent attempts to pass RFRAs in other states, such as Indiana in 2015, have elicited passionate responses. Although it received relatively little national attention, Montana’s RFRA was still opposed by over 250 businesses, including national corporations like Google, Amazon, and Verizon.

Why are efforts to protect religious freedom encountering so much opposition nowadays? The political left’s opposition to RFRA laws has become predictable. However, a well-known pastor and seminary chancellor recently stunned evangelicals when he called religious freedom “idolatry.” The United States of America was founded in part by those fleeing religious persecution, but it seems our society’s understanding of the value of religious freedom has been lost.

How should Christians think about religious freedom? Is religious freedom worth defending? Moreover, does the Bible provide a rationale for a policy of broad religious freedom?

First, it is important to define our terms. Religious freedom is the freedom to hold religious beliefs of one’s own choosing and to live in accordance with those beliefs. Religious freedom protects individuals’ ability to come to their own conclusions about matters of utmost importance—such as God, the world, and themselves—free from government coercion.

An important implication flows from this definition: religious freedom does not privilege one religion over the other. Religious freedom protects people of every faith and people with no faith affiliation. Although its detractors often characterize religious freedom advocacy as the attempts of a dominant faith group (e.g., American Christians) to acquire more power or rights, this is simply not the case. Properly understood, religious freedom levels the playing field and protects the conscience rights of everyone.

Now that we have established what religious freedom is, we must ask ourselves: is it biblical? Can a biblical case be made for policies that protect religious freedom? In short, yes. Although no one verse in the Bible expressly demands religious freedom on its face, I would argue that the concept is implicit on nearly every page of Scripture.

How did I reach this conclusion? First, it is important to recall what Christian theology teaches about the interior nature of faith and the futility of coercion in matters of religion. Consider someone’s relationship with God. Although outside forces can certainly influence a person’s perception of God, a person’s inner beliefs are ultimately only known to the person himself (and, of course, to God). The spiritual nature of faith makes it impervious to outside control. This is why an aggressor can torture, abuse, and persecute a believer’s physical body without affecting that believer’s core beliefs. External pressure may be successful in producing outward conformity, but external forces can never change inward belief.

Scripture passages that underscore these truths include Jesus’ parable of the tares (Mat. 13:24-30) and the story of the rich young ruler (Mat. 19:16-30). In the parable, Jesus explains that the wheat (representing believers) and weeds (unbelievers) must be allowed to grow together. Although the unbelievers do not belong to the community of faith, they should be left alone because God’s judgment is eschatological (i.e., it will happen at the end of days). At the end of the age, God will root out the weeds (unbelievers) for their unbelief. Likewise, in the story with the rich young ruler, Jesus allows a potential disciple to walk away instead of coercing or scolding him. By honoring the man’s choice, Jesus underscored the personal nature of faith.

Further evidence that the Bible supports religious freedom is the persistent language of appeal and persuasion in evangelism. For instance, Paul reasons and debates with his listeners in Athens (Acts 19:8, 26). Throughout his ministry, Paul never attempted to force anyone to believe the gospel; he knew such a move would be futile and counterproductive. Rather, he used the means of persuasion and pleaded with people to follow Christ. Paul sought to be faithful with the gospel without being confrontational in encouraging conversion.

In short, the Bible can be said to support a broad conception of religious freedom.

As secular society increasingly misunderstands religious conviction, a growing number of people are content to restrict religious liberty protections. This is reflected in the opposition to the RFRA legislation passed last week in Montana—legislation modeled after a federal bill that once passed Congress with strong bipartisan support. Thus, there is an urgent need to explain to our society why protecting everyone’s ability to believe and live out those beliefs without consequence or restriction serves all people—religious and non-religious.

For a more extended treatment of the Bible’s teaching on religious freedom, visit frc.org/belief.

Big Money Is Driving the Transgender Trend

by Lisa

April 27, 2021

*Editor’s Note: This is part 1 of a 3-part series. The author wishes to remain anonymous.

The children’s section in Barnes & Noble recently featured a display table of books written by or about “notable women.” Included in the display is the book I Am Jazz. Author Jazz Jennings is a transgender teen (boy) who authored a picture book to explain to preschool age children that their gender identity may not match their biological sex.

Jennings claims that when he was the ripe old age of 2 years old, he was already able to articulate the fact that he wanted to be a girl. Of course, toddlers want to be all sorts of things (superheroes and princesses come to mind); but most parents are wise enough not to encourage their toddler to spend the remainder of his/her life ingesting dangerous hormones and getting a series of surgeries to help them look more like the character they imagine. Yet that’s precisely what Jennings’ parents did. They helped him start a YouTube channel about his transgender journey which led to his book being published. He eventually landed a deal to star in his own E! reality TV show, chronicling his sex reassignment journey at the age of 13.

Jennings was the first case of the trans machine attempting to push its propaganda on young children nationwide. It opened the floodgates for what had been pre-planned from there.

Now trans propaganda is everywhere we turn. We pull up Google to do a search and see the message “Happy Black Trans Pride Day!” printed below the search bar. We walk into Target and pass bathroom signs showing a male wearing a partial dress. We turn on Netflix’s popular kids’ show Babysitter’s Club to find the babysitters caring for a trans 6-year-old. We scroll through Twitter to find that even Oreo cookies feels the need to remind us “Trans people exist.”

How did we get here? When did insanity go mainstream? And why are they forcing it on our children?   

I believe the answer to these questions can be largely summed up in one word:    

Money.

It all began with a man ironically named John Money, and it spiraled down from there thanks to the money of several billionaire trans activists.  

John Money first came up with the idea of a “gender identity” back in the early ‘60s. Money was born in New Zealand in 1921 and later emigrated to the U.S. where he earned a PhD from Harvard. He became a professor of pediatrics and psychology at Johns Hopkins University where his unique ideas on gender led to him establishing the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic in 1965. It was the first clinic of its kind in the world.

After the clinic opened, Money was introduced to the Reimers—parents who had twin boys named David and Brian. After a doctor had badly botched David’s circumcision, Money encouraged the Reimers to give the baby a full sex reassignment surgery at his new gender clinic. He also recommended they start David on hormone treatments and raise him as a girl, changing his name to Brenda. With Money’s impressive credentials, David’s parents were persuaded and did as he suggested.   

For the 25 years that followed, David’s case was used by Money and others to prove that changing a child’s “gender identity” was not only possible but beneficial. Money published numerous papers touting the success of David’s sex reassignment. As a result, Money’s views on gender identity became the primary viewpoint among doctors for the next three decades, resulting in thousands of sex reassignment surgeries. Money went on to receive 65 honors, awards, and degrees.

But the truth about John Money, the father of the gender identity movement, is that he was a pedophile advocate. He said pedophilia is not a disorder, it is simply caused by a “surplus of parental love that becomes erotic.” He is quoted as saying, “If I were to see the case of a boy aged 10 or 11 who’s intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his 20s or 30s, if the relationship is totally mutual and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual…then I would not call it pathological in any way.”

Knowing this helps us understand why Money performed numerous “research experiments” on both David and his twin brother Brian. According to David, Money forced the boys to perform sex acts together, claiming he was trying to help them develop a healthy gender identity. He instructed David to play the part of the woman and Brian to play the part of the man. 

At age 14 when David found out he was really a boy, he was devastated. He changed his name from Brenda back to David and underwent surgery to reverse all his female bodily modifications. He later said in an interview, “I’d give just about anything to go to a hypnotist to black out my whole past. Because it’s torture. What they did to you in the body is sometimes not near as bad as what they did to you in the mind—with the psychological warfare in your head.”

David’s twin Brian eventually developed schizophrenia and later died after overdosing on anti-depressants. David shot himself in the head at age of 38. David’s parents have said that Money’s methods were directly responsible for the deaths of their two sons.

By the time the boys died, Money’s “gender identity” lie had gone mainstream, and once several billionaires realized that Money’s ideas were quite literally money… it was game over.

For all the diversity touted by the LGBTQ community, at the end of the day, the entire transgender movement was instigated by a few rich white men. You see, the buying power of the LGBTQ population currently stands at $3.6 trillion, so businessmen recognize an opportunity when they see it.

Read part 2.

FRC’s Top 7 Trending Items (Week of April 18)

by Family Research Council

April 23, 2021

Here are “The 7” top trending items at FRC over the past seven days:

1. Update: Troubled Waters: California Rep. Eggs on Rioters

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) doesn’t represent the people of Minneapolis. In fact, when she stands in front of a crowd and spews dangerous rhetoric, she doesn’t even represent Los Angeles County. When she travels to Minnesota to tell the mob to “stay in the streets” and “get more confrontational,” she only represents one thing: the fringe Left.

2. Update: A Border Boiling Over

When the 10 Republican lawmakers arrived before midnight to tour the migrant holding facility in Donna, Texas, they were shocked by what they saw. In March, border guards encountered 172,331 unaccompanied minors, family units, and single adults on the southern border, and the flood keeps on coming. And yet, Democrats still insist: there is no crisis.

3. Blog: Urgent Prayer Alert: Six Somali Christians Face Life-or-Death Trial for their Faith

The East African country of Somalia is infamous for many reasons, one if which is for hosting the vicious Islamist al-Shabaab terrorist group. And now, according to Open Doors’ World Watch List, Somalia is the third worst persecutor of Christians in the world.

4. Blog: Terrible News for Nigeria’s Christians as Violence Increases

The stories that emerge from Nigeria are always terrifying and similar: heavily armed jihadis suddenly appear in the dead of night. They attack house after house, breaking down doors, shouting “Allahu Akbar.” They shoot the elderly and able-bodied men. Women are raped or murdered. They kidnap young boys and girls. Then they torch houses, schools, and churches.

5. Washington Watch: Michael Waltz, Jeff Duncan, Ken Blackwell, Larry Taunton

Tony was joined by Michael Waltz, U.S. Representative from Florida, on President Biden withdrawing troops from Afghanistan; Jeff Duncan, U.S. Representative from South Carolina, on Major League Baseball removing the All-Star game from Georgia; Ken Blackwell, FRC’s Senior Fellow for Human Rights and Constitutional Governance and former Ohio Secretary of State, on concerns about violence ahead of the Chauvin verdict; Larry Taunton, Executive Director of the Fixed Point Foundation, on the Marxist takeover of big business.

6. Washington Watch: Marsha Blackburn, Jason Johnson, Rand Paul, John McLaughlin

Tony was joined by Marsha Blackburn, U.S. Senator from Tennessee, on the annual report released by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom; Jason Johnson, former Deputy Police Commissioner for Baltimore and President of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, on the verdict in the Chauvin case; Rand Paul, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, on the letter he and a group of GOP senators sent to the Department of Justice and the Small Business Administration urging an investigation into Planned Parenthood; and John McLaughlin, Pollster for McLaughlin and Associates, on his survey showing that 78 percent of all voters support voter ID requirements in elections.

7. Washington Watch: John Boozman, James Comer, Quena Gonzalez, David Closson

Tony was joined by John Boozman, U.S. Senator from Arkansas, on his legislation that increases penalties for those who attack law enforcement officers; James Comer, U.S. Representative from Kentucky and Ranking Member on the House Oversight Committee, on the U.S. House of Representatives approving D.C. Statehood legislation; Quena Gonzalez, FRC’s Director of State & Local Affairs, on recent state legislation impacting faith, family, and freedom; and David Closson, FRC’s Director of Christian Ethics and Biblical Worldview, on the media criticizing evangelicals for vaccine hesitancy.

FRC On the Hill (April 19-23): D.C. Statehood and Banking Access for Big Marijuana

by Connor Semelsberger, MPP

April 23, 2021

Family Research Council wrapped up another busy week as your voice for life, family, and religious freedom on Capitol Hill. Here are some highlights from what FRC worked on in Congress this week.

House Passes an Unconstitutional Bill to make D.C. the 51st State

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 51—a bill that aims to make Washington, D.C. the 51st state—by a vote of 216-208. It was met with fierce opposition from Republican members. No members of either party broke rank, making H.R. 51 a purely partisan bill.

Rep. Andy Harris, the only Republican to represent the state of Maryland in either chamber, voiced his strong opposition to H.R. 51, citing his home state’s initial ceding of land to create the District. He outlined the constitutional problems with making the federal enclave into a new state, especially when land used to create D.C. was once a part of Maryland.

H.R. 51 now heads to the Senate, where only 44 of the 50 Democrats support the bill. FRC will continue engaging with both chambers of Congress to inform members of the constitutional and practical problems posed by D.C. statehood.

Check out FRC’s new resource outlining seven key things you should know about the current campaign for D.C. statehood.

Congress Seeks to Protect Big Marijuana Businesses, Without Debate

The marijuana industry continues to expand as more and more states begin legalizing recreational marijuana. Now, big marijuana businesses have partnered with the banking industry to push Congress for special legal protections. The SAFE Banking Act (H.R. 1996) would maintain the current federal prohibitions on marijuana drug use for recreational or medical purposes; however, it would create a special carveout for businesses that buy and sell marijuana to have access to banking and other financial systems.

This bill passed the House 321-101 with virtually no hearing, debate, or amendments allowed to be offered. The FRC team worked diligently to inform House members and their staff of the detrimental impact this bill would have, including propping up the marijuana industry and further exposing families and children to pervasive drug use. Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) lead the opposition to this bill, giving an excellent floor speech outlining how its passage would affect families and children. Unfortunately, many members who typically champion socially conservative issues voted in favor of the SAFE Banking Act, placing business interests ahead of the interests of American families.

This bill now moves to the Senate, where Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) plans to unveil a full marijuana legalization bill soon. Fortunately, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), the Senate Banking Committee chairman, has come out in opposition to the SAFE Banking Act and has maintained a constant opposition to marijuana legalization. FRC will work with his office and other senators to ensure that this bill does not reach the president’s desk.

Other Notable Items FRC Tracked This Week

  • The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to examine voting rights legislation. Senators Mike Lee (R-Utah), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) each gave great testimony and asked questions to counter claims that voter integrity laws are discriminatory.
  • The House Judiciary Committee hearing on enforcing the Voting Rights Act. North Carolina’s lieutenant governor, Mark Robinson, gave a rousing defense of election integrity efforts in North Carolina and across the country.
  • The House Ways and Means Committee hearing on paid leave and child care. Representative Nunes (R-Calif.) brought up the importance of faith-based childcare providers and asked how they could be more involved in addressing childcare needs. 

It’s Past Time for the U.S. to Formally Acknowledge the Armenian Genocide

by Lela Gilbert

April 23, 2021

Saturday, April 24 marks Armenian Genocide Memorial Day. And, reportedly, U.S. President Joe Biden is preparing to formally acknowledge that the systematic murder and deportation of millions of Armenia’s Christians by the Ottoman Empire more than a century ago was, in fact, genocide.

At the time of this writing, no official acknowledgement has occurred. And if Biden makes that declaration, he won’t be the first world leader to do so.

During a Sunday sermon in April 2015, Pope Francis referred to the 1915 Turkish mass killings of Armenians as the “first genocide of the 20th century.” Unsurprisingly, this papal declaration instantly flared into a diplomatic uproar. It absolutely infuriated Turkey’s Islamist President Tayyip Erdogan, who “warned” the Pope against repeating his “mistaken” statement.

Pope Francis was not mistaken. Those early 20th century massacres cost 1.5 million Armenian Christians their lives, along with another million Assyrian and Greek believers. Thanks to the Pope’s pronouncement and Erdogan’s outrage, the rest of the world was once again effectively reminded of the genocide’s terrors.

The tragic story began on April 24, 1915, when Turkish authorities arrested hundreds of Armenian professors, lawyers, doctors, clergymen, and other elites in Constantinople (now Istanbul). These revered members of the community were jailed, tortured, and hastily massacred.

After killing the most highly educated and influential men in the community, the Turks began house-to-house searches. Ostensibly they were looking for weapons, claiming that the Christians had armed themselves for a revolution. Since, in those days, most Turkish citizens owned rifles or handguns for hunting and self-defense, of course the Turks would find arms in Armenian homes. And this served as sufficient pretext for the government to arrest enormous numbers of Armenian men who were subsequently beaten, tortured, and murdered.

The family members who survived these home invasions—mostly women, children, the ill, and the elderly—were forced to embark upon what has been described as a “concentration camp on foot.” They were told they would be “relocated.” Instead, they were herded like animals with whips and cudgels. And at gunpoint, they were sent on a death march to nowhere.

The captives were provided with little or no food or water. Old people and babies were the first to die. Women were openly raped; mothers were gripped with insanity, helplessly watching their little ones suffer and succumb; more than a few took their own lives. Eyewitness accounts and photographs remain today, and they are heart wrenching. Corpses littered the roads; nude women were crucified; dozens of bodies floated in rivers.

On Jan. 5, 2015, Raffi Khatchadourian published a personal essay in The New Yorker about his Armenian grandfather, who somehow survived the Armenian Genocide. He described the brutality:

Whenever one of them lagged behind, a gendarme would beat her with the butt of his rifle, throwing her on her face till she rose terrified and rejoined her companions. If one lagged from sickness, she was either abandoned, alone in the wilderness, without help or comfort, to be a prey to wild beasts, or a gendarme ended her life by a bullet.

Some Turks claim that World War II-era Armenian Christians had aligned themselves with Russia and were therefore a threat to Turkish security. But although the excuse that Armenian Christians were “enemies of the Turkish State” is still bandied about, German historian Michael Hesemann has carefully documented that it was not only a genocide of Armenians, but also an extermination of the Christian element in the Ottoman Empire. It was an ethnic and religious cleansing.

In fact, the Armenian Genocide has been described as a jihad in numerous accounts. Armenian women were even told they would be spared if they would convert to Islam. It is noteworthy that at the genocide’s beginning, on November 13, 1914, a call to jihad—a holy war against Christian “infidels”—was officially announced by Ottoman Sultan Mehmed V Resad. The carnage began just days later.

And in the eyes of some Armenians, it has never stopped. I learned in October 2020—during a conversation with a friend in Yerevan—that Azerbaijan’s ongoing invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh was perceived by many Armenian Christians as the continuation of that same Islamist jihad against them.

Last October, the combined armies of Azerbaijan and Turkey, supported by Syrian mercenaries, ferociously attacked Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenian enclave. Historic churches, ancient carved cross-stones called khachkars, monasteries, and other Christian shrines and properties were defaced, demolished, and dispossessed. Meanwhile, an estimated 100,000 refugees frantically fled across Armenia’s border.  

It is a well-known story but worth repeating that in 1939, as he planned his “Final Solution” to rid the world of Jews, Adolf Hitler notoriously said, “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

Hitler was very wrong indeed. The world certainly will remember that annihilation on Armenian Genocide Memorial Day. Countless voices will speak out in remembrance of Turkey’s murdered Christian population. Will one of those voices be that of the President of the United States, Joe Biden?

If Biden has chosen to be the first U.S. President to officially declare that the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians was historically a genocide, he will most certainly deserve our thanks and applause.

  • Page 1 of 3
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

March 2021 «

» May 2021

Archives