Sandra Merritt Asks SCOTUS To Take Planned Parenthood Case

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Liberty Counsel has filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the previous ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals against Sandra Merritt in Planned Parenthood’s multimillion-dollar civil lawsuit for her undercover investigation of the abortion giant. The implications of this case have far-reaching First Amendment consequences involving free speech and undercover journalism.  

In the petition for writ of certiorari, Liberty Counsel asks the High Court to consider “whether the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause protects newsgathering journalists, who operate under an alias to document and expose what they reasonably believe to be unlawful conduct, from being subjected to punitive liability for ‘fraud.’ This case concerns whether, and to what extent, the press may raise the First Amendment as a defense against generally applicable tort laws when undercover journalists gather and publish truthful news of significant public importance. Accordingly, the First Amendment not only protects the publication of news; it also protects the newsgathering process, including undercover investigations, because ‘without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated.’” 

Merritt and David Daleiden, founder of Center for Medical Progress, released videos in 2015 exposing Planned Parenthood’s illegal trade in aborted baby body parts, after a 30-month undercover operation. The videos showed Planned Parenthood executives haggling over prices of aborted baby body parts and discussing how they change abortion procedures to obtain more intact organs. 

In October 2022, a three-member panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled against Merritt and Daleiden regarding numerous errors of the trial court, including: (1) the award to Planned Parenthood of millions of dollars in “damages” involving publication of Planned Parenthood’s own words, without any proof that the undercover videos were false or deceptive, in violation of the First Amendment; (2) the use of Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to punish constitutionally protected undercover journalism intended to expose unethical and criminal wrongdoing; (3) the award to Planned Parenthood of “damages” involving legally recorded conversations without allowing the jury to hear those conversations, and without requiring Planned Parenthood to prove that the conversations recorded in public places were “confidential;” and (4) the failure of the district court judge to recuse himself from this case, despite the appearance of impropriety resulting from his connections to Planned Parenthood. 

Liberty Counsel then filed a request for an en banc (full court) review and presented argument that the appeals court should reverse the lower court’s ruling, order a new trial, and strike the punitive damages award. The Ninth Circuit denied the request. 

In 2019, the case was heard by San Francisco’s U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick III, who is the founder of the Good Samaritan Family Resource Center that houses the Planned Parenthood of Northern California facility in its complex. In 2017, the defense requested that Orrick recuse himself from the case and he refused. Judge Orrick severely restricted the evidence, and at the end, gave instructions to the jury on how they should rule on critical issues. The jury decided in favor of the abortion giant on each count, including RICO, and awarded more than $2 million in damages. The court subsequently awarded Planned Parenthood nearly $14 million in attorney’s fees and costs, for a total judgment of over $16 million.  

Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Sandra Merritt is asking the Supreme Court to undo the blatant injustice of this case. Every journalist and person who values free speech and a free press should be concerned with the implications of this case. We will fight for the free speech rights of all people.”

They Seen Their Opportunities And Took ’Em

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – There was once a political machine that controlled New York City and much of New York State as well. It was formed in 1786 and became the repository of all the notable political leaders of the day, as well as their henchmen. It was a place where the local Democrats ruled and, if you wanted to get ahead, you joined and worked your way up.

It was called The Tammany Society, taking its name from Tamanend, a tribal leader of the Lenape Tribe, and using American Indian names to designate their leaders, such as the Great Sacherm, for its leader. Of course, we know it today from history as Tammany Hall.

In 1842 in a shanty town outside of what is now Manhattan, a baby was born and given the name George Washington Plunkitt. Young George grew up in rough times, working as a butcher’s apprentice before starting a construction business. Being attracted to politics he joined the Tammany Society and ultimately was elected to several terms in both the New York Assembly and Senate, where he amassed a fortune.

At the turn of the last century, he sat down with a reporter, William L. Riordon, for a series of articles on his life and political thoughts. Those articles were later published in a popular book, Plunkitt of Tammany Hall, in 1905. That book was recommended to me by my graduate political science professor, and later I assigned it to my political science students in my State and Local Government classes.

If you can find the book, buy it, download it, borrow it, but read it. It will put a smile on your face and questions in your head, and you won’t forget it.

But there was one chapter in the book you should read first, which isn’t hard since it is the first chapter on “Honest Graft and Dishonest Graft.” In it, Sen. Plunkitt explains how he became wealthy during his numerous terms in office.

“Everybody is talkin’ these days about Tammany men growin’ rich on graft, but nobody thinks of drawin’ the distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft. There’s all the difference in the world between the two. Yes, many of our men have grown rich in politics and I’m gettin’ richer every day, but I’ve not gone in for dishonest graft — blackmailin’ gamblers, saloonkeepers, disorderly people, etc. — and neither has any of the men who have made big fortunes in politics,” he said.

He then went on to explain what honest graft is, using example after example. In the first he tells of the city planning a new park at a designated place. He, of course, is tipped off about the plan and its location and, before any public notice is given, he goes out and buys the land at rock-bottom prices and after the park announcement is made he sells it for a nice profit.

“Ain’t it perfectly honest to charge a good price and make a profit on my investment and foresight? Of course, it is. Well, that’s honest graft,” he says.

Other examples he used, including hiring practices and pay raises for city employees, buying up land for a bridge before public notice, then selling it when plans are announced; buying up old granite bricks dug up from a street re-paving project and manipulating the bidding so that he was able to purchase the lot for pennies; swamp land that would be needed to complete a park — all examples of honest graft, famously saying, “I seen my opportunities and I took ’em.”

This, he says is, how he got rich from honest graft and how most other politicians get rich the same way, they never steal a dollar from public coffers, they just seen their opportunities and took ‘em.

“That is why, when a reform administration comes in and spends a half-million dollars in tryin’ to find the public robberies they talked about in the campaign, they don’t find them.

“The books are always all right. The money in the city treasury is all right. Everything is all right. All they can show is that the Tammany heads of departments looked after their friends, within the law, and gave them what opportunities they could to make honest graft.”

Now you might wonder why I bring this matter to you.

In the past few weeks, a House committee has reported on some rather questionable cash payments to Biden family members, including several grandchildren of the president. While the specific origin and purpose of the monetary transfers remain hazy, the origins appear to be mostly foreign, and the money was delivered through at least twenty different corporations, all formed by a Biden family member in Delaware and Washington, D.C.

Now I am not a criminal lawyer, nor have I ever investigated an operation such as this, but my colleagues who have described this as classic money laundering. Empty corporations are formed as a device to obscure the source of said funds and to make it more difficult to connect the source of the money to the eventual recipient. That was plainly shown by the House committee.

What is important here is the response by Biden political defenders in the Democratic Party and in the media

“Nothing here,” they shout, claiming that there is no direct link to the president as a recipient. Some party loyalists claim that while this may look bad for the president, it is not illegal. The media have for the most part taken up a similar defense. The New York Times headline was: “House Republican Report Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by President Biden.”

It reported that, “After months of investigation and many public accusations of corruption against Mr. Biden and his family, the first report of the premier House GOP inquiry showed no proof of such misconduct.”

And Time Magazine reported: “[The House] Investigation of Biden Relatives Swings and Misses on Allegations of Influence Peddling.”

And so, the question arises: Is this the Twenty-First Century version of honest graft? Perpetuated by successors of the original Tammany men? Or is the Biden Bunch just victims of an overzealous political witch-hunt?

Either that or we have a new political family living by the motto: We seen our opportunities and we took ’em.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)

Florida Continues Protecting Children From Radical Ideologies

TAMPA, FL – Governor Ron DeSantis signed the “Let Kids Be Kids” bill package yesterday to protect Florida children from medical mutilation, gender ideology in schools, sexually explicit adult performances, and in private spaces such as bathrooms and locker rooms. 

“Florida is proud to lead the way in standing up for our children,” stated Gov. DeSantis. “As the world goes mad, Florida represents a refuge of sanity and a citadel of normalcy.” 

Gov. DeSantis signed a total of five bills into law which the Florida legislature passed overwhelmingly. At the top of the legislative set was SB 254, which makes it a felony offense to provide puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and genital mutilation surgeries to minors. The bill also: 

Requires adults receiving these surgeries and hormones to be informed about the irreversible nature and dangers.

Grants Florida courts temporary emergency jurisdiction to intervene and halt procedures for out-of-state children.

Creates a pathway to recover damages for injury or death resulting from mutilating surgeries or experimental puberty blockers given to a minor. 

HB 1069 focuses on the use of pronouns and expanding parental rights in public education. The bill: 

Protects students in grades K-12 from having to declare their pronouns in public school and prohibits teachers from inquiring about a student’s pronouns. The law asserts that “a person’s sex is an immutable biological trait” and “it is false to ascribe to a person a pronoun that does not correspond to such person’s sex.”

Prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in Pre-K through 8th grade.”

Gives parents the right to read passages from any classroom material that is subject to an objection. If the school board denies a parent the right to read passages then the school district shall discontinue the use of the material. 

HB 1438 is the “Protection of Children Act” devoted to protecting a child’s innocence. The measure: 

Defines “adult live performance” as “any show, exhibition, or other presentation in front of a live audience which, in whole or in part, depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or specific sexual activities … lewd conduct … when … taken as a whole, is without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for the age of the child present.”

Prohibits a person from knowingly admitting a minor to “adult live performances,” such as drag show events.

Gives state officials the ability to “fine, suspend or revoke licenses” of any public lodging or food service establishment if they admit a child to an adult live performance. 

HB 1521 ensures that Florida’s bathrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms are safe places for women. The bill: 

States “females and males should be provided restrooms and changing facilities for their exclusive use, respective to their sex, in order to maintain public safety, decency, decorum, and privacy.”

Requires designated separate restrooms and changing facilities based on biological sex or designated one-person unisex facilities in public buildings, educational institutions, detention facilities, correctional institutions, and juvenile correctional facilities. 

HB 225 expands access to youth sports for children across the state. The measure: 

Allows private school, virtual school and home school students to participate in sports and other extracurricular activities at other public or private schools.

Permits brief opening remarks at high school sporting events which are not to be monitored or controlled by the state’s athletic association. According to Gov. DeSantis’ office, the bill’s protections allow for public prayer within those remarks. 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “This expansive bill package protects our children’s precious innocence from corrosive gender ideology. Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Florida legislature deserve much credit for fighting this evil agenda. Irreversible mutilations, forced pronoun usage, gender confusing instruction and vile presentations aimed at kids all intend to indoctrinate children into the lie that a person can change their biological sex. Florida says ‘no more’ and all states should follow the Sunshine State’s lead.”

Second victory for Christian adoption agency: New York ends targeted harassment

SYRACUSE, N.Y. – Faith-based adoption provider New Hope Family Services secured a second victory against New York state officials, after securing a favorable settlement and a payment of $250,000 for attorneys’ fees in a related lawsuit settled last month. In settlement of the second lawsuit—which challenged an attempt by a different New York state agency to punish New Hope for adhering to its religious convictions—New York officials agreed to pay an additional $25,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and broadly confirmed New Hope’s right to continue its critical work of placing infants in permanent homes without government harassment. 

On behalf of the Syracuse-based adoption agency, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed New Hope Family Services v. James in September 2021 after the New York Division of Human Rights threatened to investigate and penalize the Christian nonprofit because it places infants with couples consisting of a mother and father committed to each other in marriage.

Faith On Trial program this week

Listen now: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/

CA to pay $300K for trying to force religious doctors to end patients’ lives

LOS ANGELES – In a victory for religious medical professionals, the state of California will no longer force doctors to participate in physician-assisted suicide against their religious convictions and professional ethics. To settle a lawsuit brought by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing a doctor and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, California has also agreed to pay $300,000 toward the doctors’ attorneys’ fees and costs.

As part of the settlement, California state officials agreed to not enforce “any criminal or civil punishment, including professional discipline or licensing sanction for a California-licensed physician’s refusal or failure to” document a request, refer, or assist a patient in any way with ending his life.

+++

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, and the sanctity of life.

Dodgers Reward Anti-Catholic Hate Speech

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League president 

The Los Angeles Dodgers have besmirched their legacy of combating bigotry by partnering with LA Pride in awarding this year’s Community Hero Award to an obscene anti-Catholic group, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. The award, which will be presented by Blue Shield of California on June 16, celebrates the “10^th Annual LGBTQ+ Night” at Dodger Stadium. 

In 1947, the Brooklyn Dodgers made history by naming Jackie Robinson to its roster. He was the first black man to play Major League Baseball (MLB). Now it is in the business of promoting bigotry, not fighting it. By rewarding anti-Catholicism, the Dodgers have broken bread with the most despicable elements in American society today. 

The Catholic League has been the leading critic of this bigoted organization for many decades. Don’t believe the lie that the “Sisters” mean no harm. And don’t believe the lie, floated by Erik Braverman, a communications spokesman for the Dodgers, that this event is all about “diversity and inclusion.” On the contrary, it’s about rewarding hate speech. 

These homosexual bigots are known for simulating sodomy while dressed as nuns. They like to feature a “Condom Savior Mass,” one that describes how the “Latex Host is the flesh for the life of the world.” The “Sisters” go by names such as “Sister Homo Fellatio” and “Sister Joyous Reserectum.” Just last month, they held an event mocking Our Blessed Mother and Jesus on Easter Sunday. 

I am writing to Rob Manfred, commissioner of MLB, about this unprovoked assault on Catholics. In his letter to Manfred, Senator Marco Rubio asked, “why are you allowing an MLB team to honor a group that mocks Christians through diabolical parodies of our faith.” In my letter, I said that if a group of white boys in black face—a modern day Al Jolson ensemble—were to be honored by an MLB team, there is little doubt that the event would be cancelled and sanctions would be forthcoming. 

Two years ago, Manfred was so angered about alleged voter irregularities in Georgia that he moved the All Star Game to Denver. Let’s see how he reacts when Catholics are targeted.

IN Legislators Defund Kinsey Sexual Research Institute

INDIANAPOLIS, IN – Governor Eric Holcomb recently signed a two-year budget bill which includes the defunding of Indiana University’s sexual research institute founded by the late Dr. Alfred Kinsey who is known as the father of the sexual revolution. The methods Kinsey used were unethical, including sexual experiments and abuse on infants, and the statistically and scientifically fraudulent “data” is derived from serial child rapists, sex offenders, prisoners, prostitutes, pedophiles, and pederasts.

HB 1001 specifies that taxpayer funds “may not be used to pay for the administration, operation, or programs of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction.”

Rep. Lorissa Sweet introduced an amendment to the bill on February 22, 2023, to defund the research center founded by the Indiana University professor of entomology and zoology. In 1947, Kinsey founded the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University, which is now known as the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction.

The Indiana House voted 53-34 to block state funding toward the Kinsey Institute that “continues to explore the complexities of sexual and gender diversity and variation in sexual and relationship experiences.”

While introducing her amendment, Rep. Sweet criticized the Kinsey Institute for creating an app that allows users to anonymously post descriptions of sexual encounters along with their location so that researchers can track the activity across the globe.

“By limiting the funding to Kinsey Institute through Indiana University’s tax dollars, we can be assured that we are not funding ongoing research committed by crimes,” Sweet said. “By doing such dastardly experiments on children, Kinsey ‘determined’ that children are sexual from birth, which is why our society now sexually exploits children at very young ages,” Rep. Sweet stated.

As part of his “Kinsey Reports,” Kinsey used the journal of a child rapist to record the rape of 196 children, which he referred to as “pre-adolescent sex play.” He claimed that the victims enjoyed the experience despite some having “violent convulsions” or “sobbing.” Table 34 in Kinsey’s book, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male,” lists the number of orgasms of children, some as young as two, performed within a 24-hour period.

The late Dr. Judith Reisman was a visiting professor at Liberty University School of Law and documented the criminal abuse of more than 300 infants and children in the production of Kinsey’s research. These children were ages two months to 15 years.

In 2019, as part of the American Psychological Association’s (APA) LGBT activist agenda, it created a task force to refute monogamous marriage and to normalize “consensual non-monogamous” relationships, which it refers to as Consensual Non-Monogamy (CNM). CNM includes polygamy and polyamory (group sexual relations, including “swinging.”)

The task force’s “peer-reviewed and historic consensual non-monogamous (CNM) literature studies,” including research on polyamory by Ken Haslam, are based on the works of Kinsey.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Alfred Kinsey was a sexual pervert whose unscientific propaganda exploited women and harmed children. Kinsey should have been prosecuted for the vile abuse of children he catalogued in Table 34 of his first book published in 1948. His work is indefensible. Indiana University should disassociate itself from anything related to Alfred Kinsey.”

U.S. Department of Education’s Proposed Rule Threatens Religious Schools’ Athletic Programs

Washington, DC—First Liberty Institute submitted a public comment today to the U.S. Department of Education on behalf of Houston Christian University concerning a proposed rule change that disregards traditionally-held religious beliefs. The rule, “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female Athletic Teams,” disproportionately burdens religious schools who cannot permit males to play with, or compete against females, due to the schools’ religious beliefs and practices. 

You can read the letter here. 

“This language is an underhanded attempt to eradicate sex-separated teams,” said Keisha Russell, Counsel for First Liberty Institute. “Houston Christian University and other schools cannot meet the requirements of the rule and remain consistent with their religious beliefs. The Department’s proposed rule fails to recognize that sex-separated athletics serve an important educational goal and minimize harm to students.” 

Schools like Houston Christian University that hold traditional religious beliefs about sexuality are sprirtually motivated to ensure that its female athletes have access to equal and fair opportunities in athletics. 

According to the comment submitted today, if finalized, the proposed rule will confuse schools and administrators, disproportionately burden religious schools, and prevent schools from providing equal opportunity in their athletic programs. The comment calls for the Department to rescind the Athletics Rule and leave the current rule unchanged.

First Liberty Institute is a non-profit public interest law firm and the largest legal organization in the nation dedicated exclusively to defending religious freedom for all Americans.

Do We Teach Civics Anymore?

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – In grade school the good nuns taught us civics. They were very proud of our country and encouraged us to continue with that pride. As kids we learned about the founding fathers, our history, as well as our faith. All have now come under attack by a society led by fascist fellow-travelers who no longer believe in those ideals taught to us as children.

Our founders gave us a government with limits on its powers to preserve our individual liberties. Our tri-part government, executive, legislative, and judicial, all equal branches, were established to protect those interests, and the courts, in particular, were designed to be independent and to make legal rulings without reference to public favor, or politics — that is why the founders put no tenure on the terms of federal judges.

One of the most recent and pernicious attacks on our system is from our Democratic friends and the stooges who have not recognized that the “party line” has changed from slightly left of center to full-blown Communism. This attack is on the Supreme Court itself…well, mainly the Republican appointees. When I read an article entitled, “The Left’s plan for a hostile takeover of the Supreme Court,” in the Washington Examiner by Thomas Jipping, I booked him as a guest on our Faith On Trial radio program.

Jipping is the senior legal fellow at the Edwin Meese Center for Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. And he carefully spelled out what the Left is doing: a grab for power by de-legitimizing the court as a political tool of the right. “The Left,” he wrote in his article, “is after power rather than liberty and, therefore, sees limits on government as obstacles to be overcome.”

The first thing he told my audience is that the Left is trying to weaken the trust the public has in the court as a legitimate institution.

“The Left wants people to see the Supreme Court and its decisions in a completely political way…in other words: whose political interests do these decisions further? Therefore, those decisions that don’t go your way must be political or partisan, or corrupt in some way….

“This is all part of a campaign that I call the hostile takeover. It’s a very misleading, abusive campaign and people need to see more thoroughly what is happening,” he said.

Jipping sees that what the Democrats are doing is really an attack on the independence of the court, and an attempt to diminish it “by any means necessary,” he told my audience. “The Left wants political judges, for them judicial independence is an obstacle.”

As an example of how the Left is working this plan he gave the example of Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas and his wife Virginia have a longtime close friend, Harlan Crowe, and for over 25 years Mr. Crowe has made available to the Thomases his home and plane for their vacations.

After arriving on the court, Justice Thomas sought an ethical ruling as to whether or not those vacation and lodging “gifts” required reporting on the court’s financial disclosure forms. Judges have a lot of financial reporting that they are required to make, but he was told that these “personal hospitality” gifts by close friends who had no business before the court need not be reported. That was the non-rule until two months ago.

It was then that the Democrats blasted Thomas for his ethical lapse by not reporting the vacation gifts from Mr. Crowe. When the story broke leftists were vocal and unanimous in their condemnation of Thomas for violating an ethical non-rule. They demanded that the ethical rules be amended so other judges must follow and after the rules were amended they continued to vilify Justice Thomas for not having reported what was not required to be reported until the adoption of the new rule on personal hospitality.

In response to the brouhaha over Thomas’ friend, the Judicial Conference of the United States amended its rules to make a distinction between accepting lodging at a friend’s home and at a resort he owns. “The Left wants us to believe that Thomas should have followed disclosure guidance that did not exist at the time and would not exist for years,” Jipping wrote.

So, Thomas was dammed as corrupt for violating no rule. It also should be noted that Mr. Crowe had no business before the court, either personally or through his business interests. Thus, there was no conflict for Justice Thomas, contrary to what the Left has tried to make the public believe.

But, he noted, when the shoe was on the other foot, the Left made no such complaint.

In 2018, he reported, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took an all-expense trip to Israel paid by a billionaire who was not a close friend and did have business before the court. Not a word from the Left. Neither was there any fuss when Ginsburg refused to recuse herself from multiple cases that came from her husband’s law firm.

The key to these disclosure rules is to prevent a conflict of interest on behalf of the judge, yet the Democrats call Thomas corrupt, and breathed not a word about Ginsburg.

Of course, he noted that this activity is not confined to the Supreme Court. He mentioned several district court and appeals court judges who have been hounded by leftists for decisions they made on the bench that liberals opposed.

“People need to care that the law is followed, people need to care that the Constitution is taken seriously, not just that their politics win every time,” he said.

One of the reasons these issues keep festering, he said, is that it is easy to manipulate citizens into believing what the Left is peddling, is the lack of civics education as well as the effect of social media.

“Unfortunately, the ignorance of most Americans, not just about our system of government in general but the judiciary in particular, makes it easy to manipulate [them] for political purposes; it’s easy to get people to believe [that] the Supreme Court decides cases based on their personal opinions rather than the law.”

Lesson from this: In a constitutional republic, such as ours, it is necessary for every person to do his part by understanding the mechanisms of the government to which we are a part. Then to respond in truth.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/, the episode with Mr. Jipping is number 361.)

Federal Courts Rule California Can't Force Churches to Pay for Abortions - LifeNews.com

Federal Courts Rule California Can't Force Churches to Pay for Abortions - LifeNews.com: Resolving lawsuits brought by four churches, two federal courts in California have ruled that the First Amendment protects the churches’ right to decline elective abortion coverage in their health insurance plans. Given the courts’ rulings in these multi-year lawsuits, state officials have agreed to pay $1,400,000 toward the churches’ attorneys’ fees. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys […]

This week on Faith On Trial

Listen now, this week’s podcast already posted: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/

Are You A Passive Parent?

By Deacon Mike Manno 

(The Wanderer) – I remember as a kid how I would wait for my dad to come home from work. Sometimes I would run up to the corner where dad would turn onto our street, and he would stop and let me in the car to ride half a block to our house. That was a thrill for a kid my age.  

My parents would discuss the news, have dinner, then, if there was nothing else scheduled for the evening, we would settle down with the TV. On fight night, dad would get a pizza and the two of us would watch some of the best pugilists of the day on the old black ’n white.

I often think about that and I wonder if my parents ever faced the challenges parents face now. I doubt it. Now we have lost our moorings, something that never happened in my parents’ day. Then most people had similar values and ideas and our political differences involved issues on the fringe. I’m not sure there was much attention paid to gay folks and the issue of transgenderism was not even considered.

There were problems, of course, but none raised to the level of what we are discussing now. Then, we kept things to ourselves, our small band of friends, it wasn’t shared with the world as social media allows kids to do today.

Now all those little childhood “secrets” get splashed across social media, and with the encouragement of perverted school administrators and a wacked-out teachers’ union they are dangled in front of our little ones as if they are candy treats. And the little ones, curious about things, will begin to look for themselves and will find a treasure trove of information on social media; more than enough to keep the kiddies’ interests.

And the more exploration on social media the more the algorithms bring kids back, so much so that they now think those secrets are a normal part of life. Such as gender fluidity, which makes them susceptible to the suggestion that they, themselves, might be confused about their identity and could even be in the wrong body.

Is it any wonder now how so many of our children — who might have been naturally somewhat confused by sex roles in an earlier generation — are now ready to believe that some kids can or should change their gender?

And yet this goes on out in the open. And what are parents to do? And why aren’t they raising holy hell about what is going on with their own children?
Just an example that came across my desk today:

In California the Escondido Union School District (EUSD) has issued a directive to all teachers and staff to hide from parents the status of their children who are being socially transitioned during school hours. Two teachers from the district are suing over the policy; note the litigants are teachers, not parents.

According to the suit: “Once a child’s social transitioning has begun, EUSD elementary and middle school teachers must ensure that parents do not find out. EUSD’s policies state that ‘revealing a student’s transgender status to individuals who do not have a legitimate need for the information, without the student’s consent’ is prohibited, and ‘parents or caretakers’ are, according to EUSD, individuals who ‘do not have a legitimate need for the information,’ irrespective of the age of the student or the specific facts of the situation.”

Notice how the policy relegates “parents and caretakers” to the status of someone who has no legitimate interest in the status of the child. This isn’t the only school doing this; these facts keep repeating themselves across the land. Some have even gone further by providing a secret change of clothing for students to wear during the day, which then are changed back when school is over and a parent comes to pick them up.

These policies are being implemented by people who have been elected to their office, and many of them have been re-elected several times. So why haven’t the parents caught on? Perhaps because if they raise their voices Merrick Garland will send in his henchmen from the upper levels of the FBI to investigate them for being white supremacists and domestic terrorists.

In a companion pro-trans scenario, a licensed marriage and family counselor is petitioning the Supreme Court to give him relief from a Washington State law that prevents him from plying his trade honestly by requiring that he follow certain norms when dealing with a minor. Thus, the counselor, when dealing with a gender confused child must reinforce the child’s self-identity and does not allow the counselor to fully probe into the depth of the child’s sexual confusion.

According to the attorney representing the counselor, “Significantly, the law only prohibits counsel in one direction: For example, it allows counseling conversations that aim to steer a young person toward a transgender identity but prohibits conversations that aim to help that same person return to comfort with his or her sex if that’s what the individual may want. The law threatens fines of $5,000 per violation, suspension from practice, and even permanent revocation of a counselor’s license.” 

This idea too has been replicated across the nation.

Unfortunately, around the nation federal courts are being inundated with such cases all brought because somewhere someone has made the decision that biological facts are out of step with today’s society. And, of course, somewhere parents wouldn’t look, or refused to see, and they allowed this to happen in their communities.

Anyone who has a child or loves a child should get a backbone and go to the mat with these politicians and school administrators. Relying on someone else to make a legal challenge is passive parenting. Your child is entitled to better.

That’s a long way from my dad’s day. He knew how to keep us safe all the while eating pizza and watching Carmen Basilio out-box Sugar Ray Robinson for a 15-round split-decision and a world title.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)

This weekend on Faith On Trial -- The Iowa Catholic Radio network

Faith On Trial this weekend: podcasts posted you can listen now at: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/ where you can listen to all of our programs.

Cultural Corruption Marks Silicon Valley

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

Silicon Valley has more than banking problems: the high tech industry is culturally corrupt. To be specific, all the talk about diversity and inclusion that the left-wing elites speak about is nothing but claptrap. In fact, it is one of the most bigoted places in America to work.

The left-wing obsession with anatomy and ancestry as markers of diversity and inclusion allows its proponents to completely exclude people whose ideas they loathe. That means conservatives and Christians.

Lincoln Network, a community of free-market tech professionals, conducted a survey in late 2017 and early 2018 of tech professionals in Silicon Valley. The focus was on ideology and workplace norms. The findings remove any doubt about the extent of cultural corruption that exists. Here are six of the conclusions.

• A large majority consider their workplace liberal or very liberal.
• Most feel their views are at odds with the cultural norms in their workplace.
• Most do not feel comfortable sharing their views on political or cultural issues….
• A significant number cannot do their best work because their ideological views are at odds with their workplace norms.
• A large majority cannot bring their whole selves to work.
• Some know someone who did not pursue or left a career in tech because of perceived conflicts in viewpoints.

Tim Ferriss is an investor and an author who describes himself as “very socially liberal.” He moved from Silicon Valley to Austin, Texas because “Silicon Valley […] has an insidious infection that is spreading—a peculiar form of McCarthyism […] masquerading as liberal open-mindedness.” Sam Altman, a venture capitalist, concurs, saying he “felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing than in San Francisco.”

“I have been retaliated against, bullied, verbally intimidated and subject to ridicule for my own opinions that are not accepted by corporate majority rule.” Those are the reflections of a middle-age tech libertarian woman whose experience in Silicon Valley is commonplace.

A male Google employee said he moved from very liberal to conservative after undergoing a “reign of terror” by senior left-wing staff. One of his co-workers admitted that “I have lost multiple talented colleagues who resigned rather than continue in the face of increasingly extreme, narrowminded, and regressive environment here at Google.”

Roughly half (48 percent) of those who work in Silicon Valley are self-described atheists or agnostics. Many don’t like Christians.

Those who are religious attribute the animus to a “postmodern secularist Silicon Valley viewpoint.” Others note that the “quietest” employees are “conservative Christians that don’t want to risk the perceived ire of an obviously non-Christian non-conservative majority.” Another worker confessed, “I would definitely be worried about professional repercussions if people knew my political and religious views.”

Religious employees are careful about wearing their religion on their sleeve. Here’s how one worker put it. “People in my workplace certainly can’t know who I really am.” He said, “a lot of people have this mindset that intellectually capable, smart people are atheist and rational.”

Similarly, a tech employee at LinkedIn opined, “When colleagues go off on jeremiads about how terrible Christians are, I infer that if they knew I was a Christian, they would not like it.” A software developer who is gay, Christian and a lifelong Democrat said he avoids sharing his views because “any sort of disagreement would make them wonder if I’m a secret Trump supporter.”

There is plenty of evidence beyond the Lincoln Network survey that shows how things work in Silicon Valley. In a piece posted on Vox, the reporter said, “Silicon Valley is a young atheist’s world,” but quickly noted, “that’s becoming a problem.” Specifically, it’s a problem for older employees who “belong to a traditional religion.”

It’s wise for such people to keep their mouth shut. As one woman put it, her colleagues are shocked to learn she is religious. “What, really?” is a typical response. That is why she avoids mentioning her religion. When she does, “she feels the need to explain her faith to reassure previously skeptical parties that she is ‘rational.’”

HBO’s “Silicon Valley” satirized the intolerant tech sector. In one episode, it depicted a gay man who is religious. They were “shocked to learn that he goes to church.” Another character admitted that Christianity “freaks people out in the Valley.”

Peter Rex, a CEO who worked there, said there is truth to the satire. He said, “I’ve experienced a combination of hesitation and hostility toward my Catholic faith.” He flatly says, “There is discrimination against Christians in Silicon Valley.”

Is it any surprise that Daniel Dennett is one of Silicon Valley’s most popular guest speakers? He is one of America’s most influential atheist writers.

Why is it that everywhere the left-wing elite exist—the university, the foundations, Silicon Valley, the media, the entertainment industry—the last thing they prize is diversity of thought? Are they that insecure of their own convictions that they must trample on freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion? Must be so.