Wednesday, February 13, 2019



An uncomfortable question that Muslim leaders 

must be asked publicly

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The saga of the 18-year-old Saudi girl, Rahaf Mohammed, has ended. She is now safe in Canada, where she was granted asylum, and was even greeted at Toronto’s airport on January 10 by Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland. She had been on the run from her family who, she said, might well kill her. Her crime? Daring to think for herself. At the age of 16, she had apparently thought for herself, and decided to leave Islam. She did not announce it to anyone in her family, but from that time forth she began to plan her escape from Saudi Arabia. She was in touch by email with another Saudi girl, also an apostate, who had managed to make it safely to the West, and from whose example Rahaf took heart. She initially set her sights on Australia.
When the family traveled to Kuwait on vacation in early January, she saw her chance. Once they were in Kuwait, she managed to evade the rest of her family and returned to the airport, where she took a flight to Thailand. At the Bangkok airport, she was met by Thai officials working with the local Saudis. They took away her passport, but did not take possession of Rahaf herself. She checked into an airport hotel, where she locked herself in a room. Thai guards stood outside. An official of Kuwait Airways came to plead with her, through a closed door, to go back to Kuwait. Nothing doing. Meanwhile, Rahaf Mohammed was contacting her friends on her phone, social media spread the story, and her plight was picked up by major news outlets, including the BBC and CNN.
The huge international outcry led Thai authorities to grant UNHCR (United Nations High Commission For Refugees) access to her “to assess her need for international refugee protection,” the UNHCR said in a statement.
Phil Robertson, the deputy Asia director for Human Rights Watch, said: “Today really was a good day for the cause of human rights around the world, with Rahaf’s tremendous courage and resilience being met with a global surge of sympathy for her. It all came together to persuade Thailand to do the right thing.”
Rahaf was still in Thailand when her father and brother arrived in Bangkok. She refused to see them; she said she was in “fear for her life.” In any case, we can all imagine the kind of performance they would put on if she had finally consented to such a meeting. Aware that they were being filmed, the father would no doubt have promised, in the nicest possible way, not to harm her in the least “if only you come home now, my daughter, and stop making a spectacle that is hurting our family and our country.” His wary daughter didn’t give him that chance.
Rahaf’s public plea for asylum expanded to include Canada, the U.S., and the United Kingdom, as well as Australia. Canada was the first to respond, and now she is safe in Toronto.
It’s a very important case. Thanks to Rahaf Mohammed, the world has been given a good look at several aspects of Islam that deserve to be held up for inspection.
First, there is the demonstration that despite Qur’an 2:256, a favorite verse for Islamic apologists that says “there is no compulsion in religion,” the example of Rahaf Mohammed shows that there most certainly is “compulsion” in the religion of Islam. The threat of death for apostasy, which Rahaf Mohammed clearly fears, constitutes all the “compulsion” any Muslim needs to stay within the faith. As for non-Muslims, it is true that People of the Book, ahl al-kitab — Jews, Christians, and Sabeans — are permitted to remain alive, and even to practice their religions, but they can do so only as “dhimmis,” tolerated as long as they fulfill a long list of onerous and humiliating conditions, of which the most important is the Jizyah tax. And that explains why millions of non-Muslims have, over the centuries, converted to Islam, because they knew it was the only way to escape from the conditions imposed on them as dhimmis. That need to escape dhimmi status constitutes another kind of “compulsion in religion.”
Second, there is the treatment of this 18-year-old girl by her devout Muslim family, which has given the world’s Infidels a vivid idea of Muslim family relations, with a despotic father who exercises total control over his children, and where a brother can similarly act as an “enforcer” for a disobedient sister. For having her hair cut in a way her family did not approve — was it merely a matter of taste, or was it deemed un-Islamic? — Rahaf was locked in her room for six months. This is one example her own story has brought to the world’s attention, demonstrating the kind of power wielded by Muslim males over an errant female family member. It’s a horrifying picture.
91% of the honor killings in the world are committed by Muslims. This is, according to the Wikipedia definition, the “murder of a member of a family, due to the perpetrators’ belief that the victim has brought shame or dishonor upon the family, or has violated the principles of a community or a religion, usually for reasons such as divorcing or separating from their spouse, refusing to enter an arranged marriage, being in a relationship that is disapproved by their family, having sex outside marriage, becoming the victim of rape, dressing in ways which are deemed inappropriate, engaging in non-heterosexual relations or renouncing a faith.”
Rahaf Mohammed’s fear of being murdered by her family in such an “honor killing” was not farfetched. But in Thailand she had become a cause celebre, and had she been forced back to Saudi Arabia, it would have been much harder for the family to punish her in such a manner.
One hopes that that stout defender of women’s rights, Ms. Linda Sarsour, who has managed to present herself as an uber-feminist, and “leader” of the Women’s March, even as she defends that most misogynistic of faiths, Islam, will be asked her views on Rahaf Mohammed. Did she find the girl’s family outrageous for their having locked her in her room for six months as punishment for a haircut? That one should be easy for Linda Sarsour. Of course, she does. But she has been mostly defensive about Saudi Arabia. She has repeatedly tweeted praise of the Kingdom, for example, of its offering 10 months paid maternity leave, as if that should end all criticism of the Saudi treatment of women. She attacks those who think Saudi women should be allowed to choose how to dress — i.e., whether to cover or not, and if so, by how much — by tweeting that it’s a trivial social problem. She’s defended Sharia law — ignoring its severe punishments, for example, for all kinds of sexual behavior, and its unequal treatment of women (e.g., in inheritance laws and testimony in court) — by exclaiming, again deflecting attention from the real issue, “wouldn’t it be great” if all interest payments were abolished as under Sharia. In reply to criticism of the condition of women in Saudi Arabia, she answers that “there are women in the Saudi parliament,” as if that were a suitable defense. You can find more on her defense of Saudi Arabia here.
And what does Linda Sarsour say about those many Muslims, including Rahaf’s family, who think apostates from Islam should be killed? If she denounces that view, she would be denouncing a belief that is central to Islam. As stated by Muhammad in a hadith (Al-Bukhari 9:57): “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” Will Linda Sarsour take issue with Muhammad? Or if asked to comment on Rahaf’s case, will she instead meretriciously offer, as I suspect, something to deflect attention such as “look, this girl was trying to get asylum, so she makes all kinds of wild charges about death threats and so on. I’m not surprised. And her little ploy worked — she’s now in Canada.”
By her own brave defiance both of her family and of Islam itself, Rahaf Mohammed has helped bring the subject of how Muslims treat apostates to the world’s attention. Many who knew nothing about how severely those who leave the faith can be punished will have learned, through Rahaf’s own story, of the threats of death she reasonably feared and, one hopes, of the hadith which supports that punishment, in which Muhammad gives his terrifying command to “kill [anyone] who changes his Islamic religion.” That ought to startle a good many people, who until now will not have known about the punishment for apostates from Islam. Her case will ideally lead to widespread discussion of this murderous hadith, which Muslims cannot ever disavow and Infidels cannot ever accept. It will be fascinating, too, to see how Muslim apologists will attempt, as they must, to defend that punishment. For without such a threat, how many millions or tens of millions of “cultural” Muslims, or Muslim-For-Identification-Purposes-Only Muslims, would leave Islam?
Meanwhile, let’s ask Linda Sarsour, our Muslim Feminist Misogynist, if she is delighted that Rahaf’s story has a happy outcome and if she thinks we should all celebrate her bravery. Or does she think that girl should have returned dutifully to her family in Saudi Arabia, a country which Linda Sarsour has for so long defended? Complicating matters for Sarsour, the Saudis, apparently ungrateful for her efforts on their behalf, began in December to assail her for having her roots in the Muslim Brotherhood. What’s poor Linda Sarsour to do — keep defending the Saudis, or deepen the rift not of her making?
And let’s all keep Linda Sarsour in our sights, by asking her, on every conceivable occasion and on every conceivable platform: Do you agree, Linda, that those who leave Islam should be killed? Or punished in any way? Yes or no? How many ways can even Linda Sarsour possibly squirm out of answering that?


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes: 
 In this new video, Imam Mohammed Tawhidi delivers a short message from Auschwitz condemning anti-Semitism in the American government - specifically Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, whom he calls out as "absolute frauds and Islamists."
"The US Congress should be focusing on serving the American people," says Tawhidi. "It should not be a platform for Islamists members of the American government to preach their hate against the Jewish people... We should do everything we can to promote peace."
Don't miss it!


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The leadership of the biggest evangelical denomination of the United States reacts: “Courage and grace of these survivors is contrasted with the horrific depravity of those who would use the name of Jesus to prey on them”.
More than 700 people have been victims of sexual abuse in churches of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), the biggest evangelical denomination of the United States. An in-depth investigation of newspapers Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express News found that around 380 church leaders and volunteers of SBC churches “left behind hundreds of victims” in the last twenty years. “About 220 offenders have been convicted or took plea deals, and dozens of cases are pending. They were pastors. Ministers. Youth pastors. Sunday school teachers. Deacons. Church volunteers”, the Houston Chronicle writes. The two newspapers have contacted dozens of victims and spoken to some convicted offenders. “Many of the victims were adolescents who were molested, sent explicit photos or texts, exposed to pornography, photographed nude, or repeatedly raped by youth pastors”, the Houston Chronicle wrote. “Some victims as young as 3 were molested or raped inside pastors' studies and Sunday school classrooms.” The newspapers claim the SBC failed to create a registry of alleged offenders.   BAPTIST LEADERSHIP: ABUSE NOT ONLY SIN BUT ALSO CRIME 
The leadership of the SBC reacted to the news with horror. “I will pursue every possible avenue to bring the vast spiritual, financial, and organizational resources of the Southern Baptist Convention to bear on stopping predators in our midst”, said J.D. Greear, the President of the Southern Baptist Convent. “We must admit that our failures, as churches, put these survivors in a position where they were forced to stand alone and speak, when we should have been fighting for them. Their courage is exemplary and prophetic. But I grieve that their courage was necessary”, Greear added. 
J.D. Greear @jdgreear  · 10 de febr. de 2019 En resposta a @jdgreear I will pursue every possible avenue to bring the vast spiritual, financial, and organizational resources of the Southern Baptist Convention to bear on stopping predators in our midst. 6/9 J.D. Greear @jdgreear There can simply be no ambiguity about the church’s responsibility to protect the abused and be a safe place for the vulnerable. The safety of the victims matters more than the reputation of Southern Baptists. 7/9 420 14:13 - 10 de febr. de 2019
The President of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Russell Moore, said “the report is alarming and scandalous, the courage and grace of these survivors is contrasted with the horrific depravity of those who would use the name of Jesus to prey on them”. Such abuses are “Satanic at its very root”, he added. Moore wrote an op-ed column on the Dallas News, and also reflected on the “crisis and scandal” in a blog article. “Sexual abuse is not only sin but also a crime. All of it should be prosecuted in the civil arena, and all of it will be brought before the tribunal of the Judgment Seat of Christ. But nothing is worse than the use of the name of Jesus to prey on the vulnerable, or to use the name of Jesus to cover up such crimes”.   
The Southern Baptist Convention instituted a study on sexual abuse inside the evangelical denomination that will report to the 2019 annual gathering. The approach of the SBC, Moore said, “is seeking to encourage policies and practices that protect children and the vulnerable from sexual abuse in autonomous but cooperating churches, all the while promoting compliance with laws and providing compassionate care for those who have survived trauma”. The Southern Baptist Convention unites 42,000 churches in the United States and represents an estimated 16 million evangelical Christians.


McConnell Announces Vote on Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal

Move will force Dems to put their far-left positions on the record in Senate vote

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Senate Democrats will have the opportunity to put their far-left positions on the record in a vote on the Green New Deal, announced Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
“I’ve noted with great interest the Green New Deal. And we’re going to be voting on that in the Senate. Give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal,” McConnell told reporters on Tuesday.

.@Senatemajldr: "I've noted with great interest the Green New Deal. And we're going to be voting on that in the Senate. Give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the ."

McConnell’s decision to hold a vote on the newly unveiled socialist proposal is meant to force Democrats to either explicitly support or reject the deal, which will likely expose the political rift between the far-left socialists and the “moderate” old guard within the party.
Most Democrat 2020 presidential hopefuls like Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) all voiced their support for the proposal.
But the Democrat leadership like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer stopped short of endorsing the proposal last week.
“It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” she said Wednesday. “The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?”
The Green New Deal was comprised of mainly socialist tenets and policy proposals, including replacing the current U.S. energy sector with 100% renewable energy sources by 2030, eliminating air travel in favor of railway systems, and providing income for individuals unable or “unwilling” to work.


Vote will either turn off independent voters or anger far-left base


Green New Deal Would Kill Almost Everyone, 

Warns Greenpeace Co-Founder

Green New Deal Would Kill Almost Everyone, Warns Greenpeace Co-Founder
CALGARY, Canada — The “Green New Deal” proposed by congressional Democrats is a “recipe for mass suicide” and the “most ridiculous scenario I ever heard,” Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore (shown) warned in an exclusive interview with The New American. In fact, Dr. Moore warned that if the “completely preposterous” prescriptions in the scheme were actually implemented, Americans could be forced to turn to cannibalism to avoid starvation — and they still would not survive. Other experts such as Craig Rucker, the executive director of the environmental group Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), also sounded the alarm about the “green” proposal in Congress, comparing it to Soviet five-year plans and calling it a “prescription for disaster.”   
The so-called Green New Deal is a massive scheme to, among other goals, restructure the U.S. economy. It is being advanced by a coalition of radical communist and socialist Democrats in Congress led by U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). A resolution (H. Res. 109) “recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal (GND)” already has 67 co-sponsors in the House. If the scheme outlined in the resolution expressing the “sense of the House” is implemented, it would seek to eliminate air travel, the eating of steaks, the use of hydrocarbons, and more. It would aim to completely end all emissions of CO2 — an essential gas exhaled by every living person and required by plants — over the coming decade.
 Moore, who was one of six international directors of Greenpeace, was flabbergasted that something so ludicrous could even be proposed, much less be advanced in the U.S. government. “It is quite amazing that someone that is in government — actually elected to the government of the United States of America — would propose that we eliminate all fossil fuels in 12 years,” he said in an on-camera interview with The New American from Canada. “This would basically result, if we did it on a global level, it would result in the decimation of the human population from 7-odd billion down to who knows how few people.” It would end up killing almost everyone on the planet, he added.
Worse than mass death would be the way people reacted. “It would basically begin a process of cannibalization among the human species, because the food could not be delivered to the stores in the middle of the cities anymore,” Moore continued. “The point that bothers me the most is that if you eliminated fossil fuels, every tree in the world would be cut for fuel. There is no other source for heating and cooking once you eliminate fossil fuels. You could use animal dung, if there were any animals left, but the animals would all die too because they would all get eaten.”  
Moore also slammed the “social aspects” of the Green New Deal proposals such as “paying people who are unwilling to work,” according to a FAQ released by Ocasio-Cortez' office. “I can't believe that anyone would write that in a proposal for law in the United States of America,” he said, calling it “just unbelievable.” Indeed, that language and other half-baked ideas caused nationwide ridicule of Ocasio-Cortez and others involved in pushing the “New Deal.” The ridicule got so intense that one of its proponents eventually lied, claiming that mischievous Republicans might have put out a fake Green New Deal document to make Democrats look ridiculous. But then the truth came out, despite the FAQ being removed from Cortez's congressional website.
But the absurdity of it all may be a boost to Republicans and President Donald Trump. “We have a situation where something completely preposterous is being backed by a large number of Democratic congressional elected representatives in the United States of America,” Moore said. “This is actually going to put Trump right over the top. I cannot see how this can possibly be negative for him. It can only be positive, because people recognize when something is preposterous. And I think that is the best word for it.”
“The best term for it is actually mass-suicidal,” Moore added. “Why would anyone vote for something that was going to result in the death of nearly all humans on Earth?” As far as what Americans could do who support the environment but not mass suicide, Moore urged people not to vote for anyone who would support the “Green New Deal.”         
Speaking at a conference put on by the Economic Education Association of Alberta over the weekend, Moore also explained that so much of what climate alarmists were pushing was pseudo-science and easily discredited lies. For instance, carbon dioxide is actually doing great things in terms of greening the planet — after all, it is plant food, Moore said. He also lambasted those who say coral reefs are dying due to alleged man-made global warming, something he said was not true. Noting that trucks need hydrocarbon fuels to bring produce to market in cities, Dr. Moore explained that just that one problem alone would be absolutely catastrophic if CO2 emissions were ended.
Moore has since left the Greenpeace he helped found, because it left him. When the group was founded, “we wanted to save civilization, we didn't want to destroy it,” he told The New American. “By the time I left Greenpeace, it had drifted into a situation in which all they had left was the green. They kind of dropped the peace, which was the human side of the situation. And now they were characterizing people as the enemies of the Earth — the human species as the enemies of nature, as if we were the only evil species.”
One of the most outrageous campaigns by Greenpeace, Moore said, was when the leadership — which had no formal science education — decided to try to ban chlorine use worldwide. “Yes, chlorine can be toxic, it was used as a weapon in World War I,” he said. “But the fact that it is toxic is why it is the most important element in public health and medicine. Adding it to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health ... that has saved hundreds of millions of lives through the time that we learned to use chlorine as an anti-bacterial agent.” Nature, he added, is full of toxic materials.              
In his own keynote address at the conference, CFACT's Rucker — who famously boarded Greenpeace ships to “punk” them with propaganda banners reading “ship of lies” and “propaganda warrior” — explained that much of the environmentalist movement has it backwards. The real key to preserving the environment, he said, is free markets, private property, and prosperity. Poor nations do not have the resources to protect the environment. And socialist-ruled nations have the worst environmental track-records of all. Meanwhile, freer and wealthier nations such as the United States, Canada, Japan, and Western Europe have remarkably clean environments.
In an interview with The New American, Rucker celebrated freedom. “What's good for people is good for nature,” he said, calling for pro-growth policies that benefit people rather than government-enforced scarcity. “It's like the old Chinese proverb: When there is food on the table, there are many problems; when there is no food on the table, there is one problem. Societies that do not take care of their people don't have the resources to take care of the planet.”
Rucker, a top leader of the non-totalitarian environmental movement, also slammed the “Green New Deal” being advanced in Congress. “It is a horrible idea,” he said, blasting the original New Deal as well. “But I actually think it is more like the Soviet 5-year plan.... They want to be off fossil fuels within 10 years. That is insane. It is not that we are embracing fossil fuels, but this is a government-driven objective much like the old Soviet plans were government-driven objectives. It is going to fail. And the problem is, it is going to take a lot of people down with it... This is going to really hurt people. It is a prescription for disaster.”
Citing University of Maryland business Professor Julian Simon, Rucker used a hilarious example to illustrate the point. If the ideology of the sustainable-development movement were used 100 years ago, there would be great concern about where humanity was going to get enough whale oil to use as lighting. But of course, since then, electricity and light bulbs have taken the place of whale oil, thereby eliminating the alleged prospect of resources running out. The same concept applies to other resources, too, he said. When the price goes up due to scarcity, people will find substitutes and new ways of getting what they need — at least they will if markets are allowed to operate. “People are not just mouths, they are also hands and a brain,” he said.  
He also drew a distinction between the "conservation" ethic, in which man is included in how to protect the planet, and the "preservation" ethic and the "Deep Green ecology" that views man as a "virus on the planet" that needs to be removed. Obviously, efforts to conserve nature should have the well-being of man in mind, he said.
Rucker and Moore both served at keynote speakers at the annual “FreedomTalk” conference Economic Education Association of Alberta. This writer gave a speech focusing on the indoctrination of children taking place in public schools — and particularly the implications of it for freedom. Other speakers highlighted the problems with the man-made global-warming hypothesis, the looming public pension disaster, and much more.
Related articles:


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The Palestinian Authority has acknowledged its “NIS 1.2 billion annual budget” for its “Pay for Slay” payments “in 2017 and 2018.”
Now Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has had enough, as he should have long ago. He stated with reference to Pay for Slay: “Let there be no doubt that Israel will deduct money that the Palestinian Authority pays terrorists and their families from the tariffs and duties it collects monthly on behalf of the PA and transfers to Ramallah.”
The PA minister for civilian affairs, Hussein al-Sheikh, has stated: “we affirm that if we have one dollar, we will spend it on the families of our martyrs and prisoners.” And Palestinian President Rami Hamdallah “and several senior Palestinian officials” have declared that any Israeli move to impact PA funding “will not deter the PA from continuing its financial aid to security prisoners and families of ‘martyrs.’” Western taxpayers have been unwittingly paying into “Pay for Slay.
The Palestinian leadership has presented the murder of Israelis as a struggle against oppression, while Israel is fighting for its survival. Fooling naive Westerners with propagandist victimhood claims is part of the jihad campaign.
“Netanyahu: ‘Pay-for-slay’ law will be implemented next week”, by Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, February 10, 2019:
Let there be no doubt that Israel will deduct money that the Palestinian Authority pays terrorists and their families from the tariffs and duties it collects monthly on behalf of the PA and transfers to Ramallah, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday.
Speaking at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting, Netanyahu said that by the end of the week, the “necessary staff work will be completed to implement the law” to deduct the money from the amount transferred to the PA.
“Next Sunday, I will convene the security cabinet and we will make the necessary decision to offset the funds. The money will be deducted – no one should have any doubt about it,” he said.
The PA has acknowledged that its annual budget for these payments in both 2017 and 2018 was NIS 1.2 billion.
It said last week that if Israel deducts the funds, the PA will not accept any of the money Israel transfers to it under the terms of the Oslo Accords – more than $100 million a month.
On July 7, the Knesset passed legislation introduced by Avi Dichter (Likud) and Elazar Stern (Yesh Atid) requiring the Defense Ministry to inform the security cabinet of how much the PA pays in “welfare payments to terrorists and their families,” which will then be deducted from the amount Israel transfers to the PA each month.
This legislation followed passage of the Taylor Force Act in the US, which ended most US assistance to the Palestinians unless the PA stops payments to terrorist and their families, so called “pay-to-slay.”…


Florida Baby Raised as Gender-neutral "Theyby"

Innocent baby used as guinea pig for bizarre gender social experiment

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
A baby in Florida is being raised with no gender, in a bizarre social experiment making headlines across the country.
The 11-month-old baby, named Sparrow, looks like he might be a boy, but his parents aren’t going to explain gender anytime soon. They know what type of genitals he has, but they’re going to ignore them til he figures it out.
Furthermore, Sparrow’s referred to as “they,” not “he” or “she.”
“We did not assign a sex at birth, which means when ‘they’ were born, umm, ‘they’ had genitals and we know what they are, uh, we just chose to acknowledge that those genitals don’t indicate anything about gender,” one of Sparrow’s parents, Ari Dennis, told WTSP.
Dennis says they’re keeping Sparrow’s biological sex a closely guarded secret.
“My own mother did not know Sparrow’s genitals for the first three months even though she was living with us at the time,” Dennis said.
Her other daughter Hazel must also adhere to the gender-neutral LARP, and cannot tell others if she has a brother or a sister.
“I say I have a little sibling, because I have a little sibling, not brother or sister,” says Hazel.
Sparrow, Dennis says, needs to be able to experience “all genders” to be able to decide whether he’s male or female.
“We didn’t want Sparrow to grow up in an environment devoid of gender – it’s not real life – we want them to get to experience all genders, so like ‘them’ going out in public and getting treated like a girl, and then getting treated like a boy, and then getting treated like someone you can’t tell shows them what the diverse options are.”
Pressed on what they would tell Sparrow if he asks if he’s a boy or girl, Dennis says they’d let him make up his own mind.
“I would tell them that they’re the only ones that get to decide that, ‘Well do you feel like a boy? Do you feel like a girl?’”
Attempting to understand the mindset behind the social experiment, WTSP’s Liz Crawford asked if Dennis thought she was evil for decorating her daughter’s bedroom in pink.
“No, I think you’re following a comfortable social narrative,” Dennis replied.
WTSP reports there’s an underground movement of parents raising gender-neutral “theybies,” with a closed FB group calleed “Parenting Theybies” containing more than 350 members.
Here’s a 30-minute interview with Dennis if you want to watch it:


On January 21, 2019, I had the honor of speaking at the Christian Rights and Freedom Institute at St. Katherine Greek Orthodox Church in Naples, Florida, on the Muslim persecution of Christians. I explained why those Muslims who do persecute Christians actually think that when they do so, they’re doing something right and righteous.